Search for: "United States v. Rider" Results 181 - 200 of 304
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 May 2018, 12:34 am by Valerio De Stefano
In the Unites States, a federal judge followed the same line of reasoning in the case Razak v Uber when he decided that Uber drivers are independent contractors because they “work when they want to and are free to nap, run personal errands, or take smoke breaks between trips”. [read post]
7 Feb 2011, 12:30 am by Norman Gregory Fernandez
We literally put on 100’s of events all over the United States every year for charity and to help others. [read post]
18 Mar 2020, 2:19 pm by Jamie Williams
United States that location data is incredibly sensitive personal information, and that it is protected by the Fourth Amendment’s reasonable expectation of privacy. [read post]
17 Jul 2009, 4:36 pm
Carlton Fields Fishing Trip Sponsored Topics: Mark Cuban - sport - Dallas Mavericks - United States - InsiderTrading [read post]
21 Mar 2015, 1:45 am by Florian Mueller
Yesterday (Friday), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit handed down a ruling (PDF) on Oracle's appeal of the USPTO's rejection (affirmed in November 2013 by a Patent Trial and Appeal Board, basically a USPTO-internal court) of various claims of U.S. [read post]
30 Jun 2015, 8:04 am by Lyle Denniston
  Because unions have a binding legal duty to act in the interest of all workers included in the unit, the labor organizations want to collect fees even from “free riders,” as they call non-union workers. [read post]
10 Jan 2017, 8:56 am by Abbott & Kindermann
(2) Does the ICCTA preempt a state agency’s voluntary commitments to comply with CEQA as a condition of receiving state funds for a state owned rail line and/or leasing state-owned property? [read post]
23 Sep 2024, 7:00 am by Marty Lederman
 (Attorney General Wirt for instance, opined in 1827 that the President could order the discontinuance of a “vexatio[us]” suit in the name of the United States if it was “wholly unfounded in law. [read post]