Search for: "Shaw v. Superior Court"
Results 1 - 20
of 127
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Jul 2022, 12:16 pm
In Shaw v. [read post]
10 Apr 2017, 11:30 am
It's good for the law to be clear (and right).If only so lower courts won't feel compelled by precedent to do the wrong thing. [read post]
18 Sep 2014, 7:42 am
The defendant in Shaw pled guilty to misdemeanor DWI in superior court. [read post]
18 Sep 2014, 7:42 am
The defendant in Shaw pled guilty to misdemeanor DWI in superior court. [read post]
18 Sep 2014, 7:42 am
The defendant in Shaw pled guilty to misdemeanor DWI in superior court. [read post]
9 Sep 2014, 10:28 am
Notwithstanding the contrary opinion by the trial court below.You won't read cases like this in law school. [read post]
18 Sep 2014, 7:42 am
The defendant in Shaw pled guilty to misdemeanor DWI in superior court. [read post]
3 Sep 2011, 2:08 am
Superior Trading LLC v. [read post]
3 Sep 2011, 2:08 am
Superior Trading LLC v. [read post]
27 Jun 2018, 1:43 pm
He fills the vacancy created by the resignation of Judge Grant V. [read post]
28 Sep 2007, 4:06 pm
In his review of the California Supreme Court decision Gentry v. [read post]
11 Apr 2017, 10:02 am
" So reports the MetNews (here) about Shaw v. [read post]
1 May 2009, 9:33 am
See Shaw v. [read post]
20 Feb 2008, 1:42 pm
" Shaw v. [read post]
31 Oct 2008, 9:31 pm
Superior Court (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 25: Brinker International simply announced it as a "Favorable Ruling From California Court of Appeal" Shaw Valenza blogged: Brinker: The Watershed Meal Period Decision Comes Down The UCL Practitioner quoted from the Recorder: "Workers Can't Catch a Break from Calif. [read post]
6 May 2015, 12:09 pm
Superior Court, the final word on an employer’s duty to “provide” meal periods. [read post]
15 Oct 2007, 6:08 am
Superior Court. [read post]
9 Dec 2020, 9:51 am
” In 2018, the California Supreme Court ruled in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. [read post]
23 Jul 2012, 6:48 am
Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 443. [read post]
18 Mar 2011, 6:22 am
LEXIS 25589, at 26-27.In Shaw v. [read post]