Search for: "State v. Grooms"
Results 101 - 120
of 455
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Mar 2020, 10:56 pm
” United States v. [read post]
28 Jan 2020, 3:44 am
”Ricardo Media Inc. v. [read post]
21 Jan 2020, 12:31 pm
Of course, pet grooming products must still comply with packaging and labeling requirements governed by FTC and state consumer protection laws, and any claims about the efficacy of the product must be substantiated by competent and reliable scientific evidence. [read post]
14 Jan 2020, 10:49 am
Borello & Sons, Inc. v. [read post]
13 Jan 2020, 9:41 am
Under Remmer v. [read post]
6 Jan 2020, 7:53 am
State v. [read post]
27 Dec 2019, 2:24 am
However, in a 2018 case called South Dakota v. [read post]
12 Dec 2019, 11:55 am
While the law states it is confirming existing law, rather than creating new law, employers need to ensure their practices comply with AB 5’s rules. [read post]
9 Dec 2019, 11:18 am
Extortion/sextortion crimes can be charged as state or federal offenses. [read post]
1 Nov 2019, 11:07 am
For example, in Davis v. [read post]
15 Oct 2019, 8:00 am
Most significantly, this impacts workplace dress codes and grooming standards that prohibited certain hairstyles. [read post]
14 Oct 2019, 5:06 pm
AB 5 codifies the California Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. [read post]
14 Oct 2019, 10:51 am
In Del Monte Fresh Produce, N.A. v. [read post]
9 Oct 2019, 8:13 pm
White and Oncale v. [read post]
29 Sep 2019, 4:08 pm
Newspapers Journalism and Regulation On 5 September 2019, Press Gazette had a piece “Rotherham Advertiser wins battle to overturn reporting restrictions on grooming gang members”. [read post]
24 Sep 2019, 6:00 am
Seibert v. [read post]
23 Sep 2019, 11:38 am
As we have previously reported, in April 2018, the California Supreme Court issued a sweeping ruling in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. [read post]
19 Sep 2019, 11:01 am
The bill creating the greatest buzz has been AB 5, which would codify the California Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. [read post]
17 Sep 2019, 9:42 am
AB 5 codifies the “ABC” test for employee status adopted by the California Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Dynamex v. [read post]
Thoughts on the SG’s “Lesbian Comparator” Argument in the Pending Title VII Sexual-Orientation Cases
6 Sep 2019, 5:08 am
Clayton County, Georgia, No. 17-1618, and Altitude Express, Inc. v. [read post]
