Search for: "U. S. v. Perez*"
Results 41 - 60
of 122
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Jan 2017, 12:52 pm
Thanks to Bryan U. [read post]
16 Dec 2016, 2:32 pm
U-Haul Co. of California, denying the defendant company’s move to compel its workers to arbitrate their representative Private Attorney General Act claims for wage-and-hour violations. [read post]
30 Oct 2016, 4:19 am
Slip Op. 50223(U) (1st Dept. 2003) (At the pleading stage it was sufficient to merely allege that children were left home alone where they were five years and seven months old respectively, the mother lied about the children’s supervision and the seven month old fell out of bed); People v. [read post]
13 Oct 2016, 6:56 am
The panel majority also discussed the High Court’s more recent decisions in Oncale v. [read post]
5 Oct 2016, 4:00 am
In Perez v. [read post]
4 Oct 2016, 12:38 am
A recent California Court of Appeal decision issued in Perez v. [read post]
4 Oct 2016, 12:38 am
A recent California Court of Appeal decision issued in Perez v. [read post]
3 Oct 2016, 2:18 pm
Diaz v. [read post]
3 Oct 2016, 2:18 pm
Diaz v. [read post]
23 Sep 2016, 9:44 am
U-Haul Co. of California (Sept. 16, 2016), the Second Appellate District, Division Seven, affirmed the trial Court's ruling that U-Haul could not assert an arbitration agreement to compel the plaintiffs to individually arbitrate whether they qualified as “aggrieved employee[s],” to determine in arbitration whether they had standing to pursue a PAGA claim.The Court agreed with Williams v. [read post]
8 Aug 2016, 8:55 am
The plaintiff in Malivuk v. [read post]
19 Jul 2016, 6:07 pm
Diaz v. [read post]
19 Jul 2016, 6:07 pm
Diaz v. [read post]
6 Jul 2016, 8:00 am
Susan Buckel v. [read post]
22 Jun 2016, 7:40 am
” The Court’s bottom line remains unaltered: “‘[U]nexplained inconsistency’ in agency policy is ‘a reason for holding an interpretation to be an arbitrary and capricious change from agency practice. [read post]
9 Jun 2016, 5:30 am
The Board employed the categorical approach focusing on the “minimum conduct that has a realistic probability of being prosecuted under the statute of conviction, rather than on the facts underlying the respondent’s particular violation of the statute” (citing Moncrieffe v. [read post]
9 Jun 2016, 5:30 am
The Board employed the categorical approach focusing on the “minimum conduct that has a realistic probability of being prosecuted under the statute of conviction, rather than on the facts underlying the respondent’s particular violation of the statute” (citing Moncrieffe v. [read post]
16 May 2016, 5:23 pm
S. 452 (1997), and Bowles v. [read post]
15 Apr 2016, 9:25 am
Retrieved from http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-unveils-retirement-savings-revamp-but-with-a-few-concessions-to-industry-1459936802 [vi] Brown, J. (2016, April 6) Wall Street Dodged a Bullet on the Retirement Fiduciary Rule [Electronic format]. [read post]
3 Mar 2016, 5:19 am
It’s also a stunning repudiation of the other side’s rhetoric.We remember, back in 1999, when the New Jersey Supreme Court went off on a tangent and recognized a novel “DTC advertising” exception to the learned intermediary rule in Perez v. [read post]
