Search for: "Harte Hanks Shoppers, Inc."
Results 1 - 20
of 25
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Nov 2007, 9:00 am
Harte-Hanks Shoppers, Inc., ___ Cal.4th ___ (Nov. 5, 2007), the Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal had improperly affirmed the trial court's order denying class certification of certain Labor Code claims: The remaining issue is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs' motion to certify a plaintiff class defined as all current and former Harte-Hanks outside sales representatives who were not… [read post]
11 Aug 2010, 1:50 am
In re Harte-Hanks, Inc., Serial No. 77017666 (June 30, 2010) [not precedential].As we know, the test for determining genericness involves two questions: what is the genus of the services? [read post]
17 Nov 2007, 10:47 am
Harte-Hanks Shoppers, Inc., holding that an employer may indemnify employees... [read post]
5 Sep 2007, 10:00 am
Harte-Hanks Shoppers, Inc. [read post]
7 Sep 2007, 11:00 am
Harte-Hanks Shoppers, Inc.. [read post]
19 May 2017, 11:00 pm
Harte-Hanks Shoppers, Inc., the California Supreme Court clarified the parameters of mileage reimbursement under California law, as well as the three different methods available for employers to reimburse employees for their mileage reimbursement. [read post]
8 Feb 2019, 5:23 pm
Harte-Hanks Shoppers, Inc., the California Supreme Court clarified the parameters of mileage reimbursement under California law, as well as the three different methods available for employers to reimburse employees for their mileage reimbursement. [read post]
19 May 2017, 11:00 pm
Harte-Hanks Shoppers, Inc., the California Supreme Court clarified the parameters of mileage reimbursement under California law, as well as the three different methods available for employers to reimburse employees for their mileage reimbursement. [read post]
6 Nov 2007, 3:57 pm
Harte-Hanks Shoppers, Inc., ruling that employers may reimburse employee expenses in the form of “additional wages” payable in a “lump sum” instead of reimbursing each separate expense for the exact amount incurred. [read post]
9 Aug 2007, 4:00 pm
Harte-Hanks Shoppers, Inc., the Second District Court of Appeal held that Section 2802 does not preclude employers from paying increased salaries or commissions "in lieu of" reimbursement for actual expenses, at least with respect to the expenses at issue in that case (automobile expenses). [read post]
5 Nov 2007, 12:27 pm
Harte-Hank Shopper, Inc. [read post]
6 Nov 2007, 4:09 pm
Harte-Hanks Shoppers, Inc. and addressed the issue of whether an employer may satisfy its obligation to reimburse employees for employment-related expenses by paying increased wages and/or commissions instead of separately reimbursing them for actual expenses. [read post]
2 Dec 2008, 9:01 pm
Harte-Hanks Shopper, Inc.) [read post]
31 Dec 2008, 3:00 pm
Harte-Hanks Shoppers, Inc. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 985, the IRS standard mileage rate may not conclusively establish compliance with Section 2802. [read post]
26 Jan 2009, 4:00 pm
Harte-Hanks Shoppers, Inc. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 554, 563 [court may adopt a DLSE statutory interpretation embodied in a void regulation if it independently determines that the interpretation is correct].) [read post]
25 Jun 2008, 4:41 am
Harte-Hanks Shopper, Inc. [read post]
23 Aug 2019, 12:02 pm
Harte-Hanks. 5. [read post]
10 Jul 2017, 4:00 am
Harte-Hanks Shoppers, Inc., 42 Cal.4th 554 (2007). [read post]
5 Nov 2007, 11:54 am
Harte-Hanks Shoppers, Inc., the Second District Court of Appeal held that Section 2802 does not preclude employers from paying increased salaries or commissions "in lieu of" reimbursement for actual expenses, at least with respect to the expenses at issue in that case (automobile expenses). [read post]
24 Oct 2014, 10:21 am
Harte-Hanks Shoppers, Inc., the California Supreme Court clarified the parameters of mileage reimbursement under California law, as well as the three different methods available for employers to reimburse employees for their mileage reimbursement. [read post]
