Search for: "SHAW v. CALIFORNIA"
Results 141 - 160
of 326
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Nov 2014, 3:21 pm
Free food regular rate miscalculation cases have actually been around in California since the Seventies (e.g., Marshall v. [read post]
22 Feb 2014, 6:00 am
MoranRepresentation and Raceblindness: The Story of Shaw v. [read post]
1 May 2011, 7:09 pm
SHAW VALENZA LLP - http://shawvalenza.com [read post]
23 Nov 2015, 12:51 pm
The CCA also considers contrasting California authority: the California Supreme Court, in Pineda v. [read post]
17 Apr 2015, 5:30 am
My colleague Robert Milligan at Seyfarth Shaw predictably beat me to the punch in commenting on the Ninth Circuit's recent opinion in Golden v. [read post]
30 Aug 2016, 1:25 pm
Vera and Shaw v. [read post]
10 Aug 2016, 8:40 am
Rptr. 2d 204 (California Court of Appeals1991). [read post]
10 Feb 2008, 3:02 am
LEXIS 9187 (ND CA, Jan. 9, 2008), a California federal district court permitted an inmate to proceed with his First Amendment, RLUIPA and equal protection claims that correctional officers denied him a breakfast tray meeting his religious dietary requirements, and when he objected, they sprayed him with pepper spray.In Shaw v. [read post]
2 Jan 2024, 2:13 am
State of California, Department of Motor Vehicles (2023) 88 Cal. [read post]
17 Apr 2007, 11:30 am
Murphy v. [read post]
31 May 2017, 9:30 pm
Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. [read post]
9 Mar 2007, 4:27 pm
For wage and hour attorneys, Wednesday's hearing in Murphy v. [read post]
11 Sep 2022, 5:09 pm
” California Inst. of Tech. v. [read post]
7 May 2024, 6:30 am
California—remained limited in their impact. [read post]
2 Jun 2015, 5:30 pm
The conversation around EEOC v. [read post]
15 Jun 2020, 10:17 am
You may have previously read Seyfarth Shaw’s excellent analysis of Lex Machina’s Trade Secret Litigation Report. [read post]
7 Apr 2017, 8:00 am
The case is Matrix Basement Systems, Inc. v. [read post]
2 Oct 2008, 4:27 am
Rost v. [read post]
1 Oct 2019, 3:46 pm
Hansen Knick v. [read post]
28 Jul 2009, 1:26 am
Ouch.In Boucher v. [read post]
