Search for: "Time, Inc. v. TIME INC." Results 141 - 160 of 35,849
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Nov 2020, 9:33 am by HRWatchdog
In an October amendment to its September ruling that time spent in exit searches constituted hours worked, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Apple can pursue its claim that exit search time is so de minimis as to be non-compensable (Frlekin v. [read post]
16 Feb 2021, 11:07 am
Topolewski immediately reapplied for the mark, but this time, through Metal Jeans. [read post]
The decision by the court of appeals, which comes at the behest of a Texas metal-working company also bearing the Galperti name, is the second time in the same dispute that the trademark agency has been reversed by the Federal Circuit (Galperti, Inc. v. [read post]
10 Jun 2008, 10:00 pm
So far, there is little express authority confirming that the holding in Murphy v. [read post]
In  Alonzo, a federal district court granted summary judgment in favor of our client MAXIMUS, Inc. on the plaintiffs’ time rounding claims. [read post]
15 Jul 2011, 6:00 am by Trevor Cutaiar
Pool Offshore, Inc., 182 F.2d 353 (5th Cir. 1999) was still good law in light of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Stewart v. [read post]
10 Nov 2022, 10:00 pm
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. questions that law when an employer can track employee clock times to the minute. [read post]
10 Nov 2022, 10:00 pm
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. questions that law when an employer can track employee clock times to the minute. [read post]
10 Nov 2022, 10:00 pm
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. questions that law when an employer can track employee clock times to the minute. [read post]
10 Nov 2022, 10:00 pm
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. questions that law when an employer can track employee clock times to the minute. [read post]
10 Nov 2022, 10:00 pm
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. questions that law when an employer can track employee clock times to the minute. [read post]
17 Dec 2021, 11:43 am by KLG PDF Import
Key Insight: Recorded phone call between party and copyright agent regarding image timing confidential at prelitigation phase Nature of Case: copyright dispute Electronic Data Involved: phone call recording Keywords: protective order, confidential phone call, work-product Identified State Rule(s): FRBC Rule 4-4.1, 4-1.2 Identified Federal Rule(s): 26(b)(3), 37(a)(5) View Case Opinion [read post]
4 Oct 2018, 3:00 am by Robert Kreisman
MioMed Orthopaedics Inc., MioMed failed in another arbitration case, this time in California. [read post]
4 Jan 2022, 4:49 pm by Dennis Crouch
We are currently waiting CVSG amicus briefs in two patent cases pending before the Supreme Court: American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. [read post]