Search for: "California Company v. Price"
Results 1 - 20
of 1,610
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Feb 2019, 8:05 pm
In 1992, a California Court of Appeals, in Winet v. [read post]
17 Jan 2011, 2:20 pm
The final judgment in People of the State of California v. [read post]
14 Aug 2018, 3:50 pm
Here’s the situation in California: In 1978, the California Supreme Court issued a decision called Mailand v. [read post]
1 May 2021, 1:44 pm
Additional Resources: California Trucking Association et al., v. [read post]
6 Dec 2007, 3:19 pm
A price squeeze occurs when a vertically integrated company with a monopoly in the upstream market sets its wholesale prices to its customers so high that they cannot compete effectively with it at the downstream level. [read post]
30 Jun 2022, 9:11 am
Employee v. [read post]
25 Jun 2013, 8:00 am
A recent California case, Ahdout v. [read post]
15 May 2017, 9:00 am
Stathakos v. [read post]
4 Nov 2014, 8:00 am
Pac Anchor Transportation, Inc. (7/28/14) --- Cal.4th --- (discussed here), the California Supreme Court held that an Unfair Competition Law (UCL) action based on a trucking company’s alleged violation of state labor and insurance laws was not “related to a price, route or service” of the company and, therefore, was not preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA). [read post]
3 Nov 2009, 3:38 pm
On November 2, 2009, the California Supreme Court handed down its decision in Schachter v. [read post]
3 Nov 2009, 3:38 pm
On November 2, 2009, the California Supreme Court handed down its decision in Schachter v. [read post]
10 Nov 2011, 6:47 am
The plaintiffs in Matthew Edwards et al., v. [read post]
6 Jun 2008, 12:52 am
Freeman v. [read post]
24 Jun 2013, 8:00 am
The question at issue before the California Supreme Court in Pac Anchor relates more closely to the one decided in Dan's City: whether an action alleging that a trucking company violated the UCL by classifying its drivers as independent contractors is "related to the price, route, or service" of the company and, therefore, preempted by the FAAAA. [read post]
3 Nov 2009, 7:03 am
On November 2, 2009, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion in Schachter v. [read post]
8 Aug 2008, 6:13 pm
The Facts in Pfizer In Pfizer, retail pharmacy plaintiffs alleged that pharmaceutical companies fixed pharmaceuticals prices, and asserted claims under California’s antitrust statute - the Cartwright Act (Bus. [read post]
24 Apr 2019, 12:07 pm
California companies have been required to reconsider their use of independent contractors since the state’s Supreme Court outlined the new ABC test in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. [read post]
5 May 2020, 12:59 pm
v. [read post]
20 Nov 2019, 1:33 pm
As we previously wrote here, AB5 codified and expanded the “ABC test” adopted by the California Supreme Court in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. [read post]
31 Jul 2014, 6:26 am
” A California appeals court reversed, rejecting the finding that the UCL action was related to the company’s price, route, or service as a motor carrier and thus concluding the action was not FAAAA-preempted. [read post]
