Search for: "Martinez v. Combs"
Results 41 - 60
of 86
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Aug 2012, 8:30 am
Relying on Martinez v. [read post]
23 Mar 2018, 1:56 pm
(See Martinez v. [read post]
1 Apr 2010, 10:50 am
Justice Moreno said that Martinez will clarify issues left open by Reynolds v. [read post]
1 Mar 2012, 7:56 am
See Slip Opinion, at 23-24.In support of this construction, the Court noted that the California Supreme Court concluded in Martinez v. [read post]
4 Jun 2010, 6:13 pm
AndreAs we previously reported here, on May 20, 2010, by a unanimous decision in Martinez v. [read post]
15 May 2019, 4:30 am
The prior employment test came from a case called Martinez v. [read post]
31 Aug 2009, 7:11 pm
Bement and its progeny and the fact that we still don't have a ruling in Martinez v. [read post]
7 May 2018, 3:58 pm
Combs, 49 Cal.4th 35, 64 (2010) (“Martinez”). [read post]
7 May 2018, 3:58 pm
Combs, 49 Cal.4th 35, 64 (2010) (“Martinez”). [read post]
1 May 2018, 1:02 pm
Combs, 49 Cal.4th 35, 64 (2010) (“Martinez”). [read post]
13 Jan 2017, 10:40 pm
The California Supreme Court held in Martinez v. [read post]
26 Jul 2011, 5:00 am
Last week we filed a supplemental brief under Rule of Court 8.520(d)(1) to address the impact of Martinez v. [read post]
2 May 2018, 10:09 am
Their motion for class certification argued that, under Martinez v. [read post]
16 Jul 2018, 2:28 pm
Borello & Sons, Inc. v. [read post]
16 Dec 2019, 11:43 am
Combs (“Martinez”). [read post]
18 Oct 2014, 6:40 pm
Combs. [read post]
3 May 2019, 6:51 am
The district court recognized that “no binding decision ha[d] addressed the standard applicable to determining whether a franchisor is an employer of a franchisee,” and “in the absence of controlling authority” it applied the standard from Martinez v Combs, with the gloss of Patterson v Domino’s Pizza, LLC . [read post]
27 Mar 2018, 7:29 am
Finding the alleged facts “wholly insufficient” to create an employment relationship under the Martinez v. [read post]
7 Apr 2011, 5:00 am
He made some policy arguments about how the statute is to be liberally construed (recently reiterated in the Martinez v. [read post]
20 Dec 2010, 3:52 pm
”The trial court issued its ruling that Futrell was not “employed” by Payday before the California Supreme Court decided Martinez v. [read post]
