Search for: "State v. Lindow"
Results 1 - 14
of 14
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Mar 2017, 5:21 pm
Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680, 692 (1946) and Lindow v. [read post]
26 Jul 2018, 10:13 am
Clemens Pottery Co. (1946) 328 U.S. 680, 692, and Lindow v. [read post]
3 Mar 2010, 5:53 pm
LEXIS 4278, at 40-44 (citing Morillion v. [read post]
31 Mar 2014, 9:50 am
Starbucks, the federal court for the Central District of California applied the de minimis test set forth in an older case, Lindow v. [read post]
31 Mar 2014, 9:50 am
Starbucks, the federal court for the Central District of California applied the de minimis test set forth in an older case, Lindow v. [read post]
17 Feb 2010, 7:33 am
" Lindow v. [read post]
8 Feb 2012, 9:22 am
Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680, 692 (1946), the United States Supreme Court held, "it is only when an employee is required to give up a substantial measure of his time and effort that compensable working time (which is covered by the FLSA) is involved" In Lindow v. [read post]
30 Jul 2018, 12:48 pm
Lindow v. [read post]
3 Mar 2010, 5:27 pm
Rutti v. [read post]
10 Aug 2011, 4:31 pm
In Lindow v. [read post]
9 Mar 2018, 10:37 am
The case is entitled Chavez v. [read post]
15 Feb 2010, 6:40 am
Arnold v. [read post]
20 Apr 2020, 8:55 am
New York City Transit Authority, 45 F.3d 646, 652 (2d Cir. 1995); Lindow v. [read post]
8 Mar 2010, 9:58 am
Rather, courts are to employ a three-prong test as established in Lindow v. [read post]
