Search for: "Duke v. SUPERIOR COURT"
Results 61 - 80
of 272
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Jun 2019, 12:38 pm
Superior Court of Los Angeles, which adopted the three-factor “ABC” test to determine a worker’s classification for wage order claims. [read post]
8 Aug 2012, 1:26 pm
One year later, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
18 Jul 2011, 9:42 am
Dukes and AT&T Mobility v. [read post]
20 Jul 2011, 5:25 pm
Supreme Court released its decision in Dukes v. [read post]
10 Nov 2014, 8:01 am
Whitaker v. [read post]
12 Jun 2013, 7:47 pm
Earlier this week I spoke at a CLE seminar on the topic of class actions, and part of my focus was the recent Supreme Court decision in Comcast Corp. v. [read post]
9 Feb 2012, 4:57 pm
Johns v. [read post]
21 Jun 2011, 7:28 am
Supreme Court this week reversed class certification in the Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
4 Apr 2016, 10:15 am
Dukes (2011), the U.S. [read post]
8 Feb 2012, 11:51 am
Plaintiffs filed the case in Alameda County Superior Court , alleging that U.S. [read post]
24 Dec 2016, 6:47 pm
Rather than apply Dukes, the Second Appellate District used United States Supreme Court authority from earlier this year, Tyson Foods, Inc. v. [read post]
1 Feb 2013, 10:50 am
Following the lead of the California Supreme Court’s decision in Arias v. [read post]
30 Sep 2015, 9:19 am
Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541, 2550-511 (2011)). [read post]
30 Sep 2015, 9:19 am
Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541, 2550-511 (2011)). [read post]
22 May 2012, 7:50 am
Dukes, 131 S. [read post]
14 Jun 2011, 5:57 am
Of course, Wal-Mart has that other class action pending... the Supreme Court opinion in Wal-Mart v. [read post]
28 May 2013, 9:03 pm
Third, ever since Dukes v. [read post]
20 Jun 2011, 8:23 am
Supreme Court issued its long-awaited and much anticipated opinion in Dukes, et al. v. [read post]
3 Jun 2013, 1:44 pm
Supreme Court in Dukes with approval. [read post]
31 May 2013, 6:59 am
The district court had also declined to certify the case due to a lack of predominance and superiority under Rule 23(b)(3), a ruling the plaintiff did not challenge. [read post]
