Search for: "Murphy v. Cole"
Results 61 - 80
of 130
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Feb 2011, 10:44 am
In that sense, the opinion reminds me of Murphy v. [read post]
4 Sep 2007, 6:00 am
In another recent wage and hour case, Murphy v. [read post]
14 Jun 2007, 11:26 pm
Murphy, 984 F.2d 196, 199 (7th Cir.1993)). [read post]
1 May 2012, 5:29 pm
The Court then explained its holding in light of Murphy v. [read post]
17 Feb 2011, 12:21 pm
(C.D.Cal. 2008) 249 F.R.D. 580, 585 (Brown), quoting Murphy v. [read post]
18 Feb 2011, 11:00 am
This was finally settled by the California Supreme Court's Murphy v. [read post]
28 Apr 2011, 9:22 am
Cal. 2008) (applying Murphy v. [read post]
17 Apr 2007, 9:40 am
Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc., No. [read post]
21 May 2007, 2:11 pm
The case in question is Murphy v. [read post]
28 Jul 2010, 8:50 am
” See Murphy v. [read post]
25 Feb 2011, 7:47 am
The Supreme Court did so in the Murphy v. [read post]
28 Feb 2011, 7:53 am
See United Parcel Service Wage and Hour Cases, __ Cal.App.4th __ (2011).With regard to meal and rest periods, the Court rejected the employer’s argument that the California Supreme Court’s analysis in Murphy v. [read post]
4 Dec 2008, 11:09 pm
Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1094]. [read post]
31 Oct 2008, 9:31 pm
Court" and then published this analysis: REST BREAK AND MEAL PERIOD CLAIMS AFTER MURPHY V. [read post]
6 May 2008, 6:00 am
(b), (c); Murphy v. [read post]
16 Apr 2007, 1:17 pm
In National Steel & Shipbuilding v. [read post]
23 Jul 2008, 6:38 am
(Murphy v. [read post]
2 May 2012, 8:41 am
See Murphy v. [read post]
28 Nov 2007, 2:04 pm
" (Murphy v. [read post]
16 Apr 2007, 11:46 am
"On Additional Hour of Pay" under California Labor Code Section 226.7 Constitutes Wage or Premium Pay Subject to Three-Year Statute of Limitations Period, not a Penalty Subject to One-Year Limitations Period, California Supreme Court Holds In a case that will have a substantial and immediate impact on labor law class action cases, the California Supreme Court today issued its long-awaited decision in Murphy v. [read post]
