Search for: "5 Cal.4th 1" Results 121 - 140 of 997
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Aug 2012, 2:19 pm by Steven G. Pearl
Co.) (2011) 53 Cal.4th 170 (discussed here), a unanimous California Supreme Court held that that the “administrative/production worker dichotomy” is not dispositive of the administrative exemption defense. [read post]
20 Mar 2008, 1:30 pm
[Murphy v Kenneth Cole Productions, 40 Cal.4th 1094 (2007)], but in certain cases, a 1 year filing deadline could apply. [read post]
10 Jan 2017, 8:56 am by Abbott & Kindermann
City of West Hollywood, 45 Cal.4th 116 (2008) (“Save Tara”), and RiverWatch v. [read post]
23 Jan 2022, 2:03 pm
Channel Lumber Co. (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1447, 1450; 2A Miller & Starr, Cal. [read post]
9 Mar 2010, 10:09 am
(Jan. 5, 2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1150, the First District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's finding that because the transaction involved was a joint venture, it was exempted from the usury laws. [read post]
8 Mar 2010, 5:07 pm
(Jan. 5, 2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1150, the First District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's finding that because the transaction involved was a joint venture, it was exempted from the usury laws. [read post]
20 Oct 2020, 6:27 pm by Bryn Miller
Antelope Valley Newspapers, Inc. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 522, 532, quoting Borello, supra, 48 Cal.3d at p. 351.) [read post]