Search for: "Green v Button" Results 1 - 20 of 129
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 Feb 2008, 6:28 am
Once again, thanks to Tony Green of The Oregonian, for alerting us to this:In Andersen v. [read post]
14 Nov 2007, 9:07 am
Thanks to Tony Green of The Oregonian for making me aware of this filing:In Arista v. [read post]
16 Apr 2022, 9:43 am by Venkat Balasubramani
A highly magnified view of the key area from the above screenshot: As between the webpage [the other plaintiff] viewed, sandwiched between the buttons allowing Russell to select her gender and the large green “continue” button were the same two lines of text in tiny gray front stating, “I understand and agree to the Terms and Conditions which includes mandatory arbitration and Privacy Policy. [read post]
24 Apr 2020, 8:41 am by Eric Goldman
Taken together, the large black boldface User Agreement title, the non-bold black User Agreement acknowledgement, the blue boldface User Agreement hyperlink, and the lime-green “I Agree” confirmation button create a user friendly display. [read post]
26 Jun 2020, 7:33 am by Eric Goldman
The case involves the following screenshot as part of the membership application: The green button says “Continue. [read post]
13 Dec 2007, 7:52 am
A big thank you to Ashbel (Tony) Green of The Oregonian for bringing these documents to our attention:In Arista v. [read post]
25 Mar 2011, 4:30 am by Jim Dedman
The comic book cover above, that of Green Lantern # 80, published way back in 1970, depicts a newspaper cover alerting the world to the death sentence of Green Lantern, Green Arrow, and an unidentified third conspirator. [read post]
23 Dec 2022, 7:26 am by Eric Goldman
In the first three screenshots, the TOS link is denoted solely by the offsetting blue-green color—no bold, no underline. [read post]
9 Nov 2020, 10:35 am by Robert Brammer
H.Res.109 [116th] Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal. 9. [read post]
12 Jul 2015, 5:27 pm by Joy Waltemath
” Because it was undisputed that the employer’s offer of over $3K accounted for double the amount of overtime pay to which she was owed (thus accounting for liquidated damages), and no other procedural complications prevented entry of judgment since no other putative collective plaintiffs had opted into the action, the court concluded that entry of judgment on her FLSA claim was proper (Maximo v. 140 Green Laundromat, July 7, 2015, Failla, K.). [read post]