Search for: "Universal Protection Service v. Super. Ct." Results 1 - 20 of 36
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Mar 2024, 6:00 am by Sherica Celine
This factor weighs in favor of the worker being an independent contractor when the work relationship is definite in duration, non-exclusive, project-based, or sporadic based on the worker being in business for themself and marketing their services or labor to multiple entities. [read post]
19 Jul 2023, 9:05 pm by renholding
SB 261 would embrace a considerably larger universe than the proposed SEC rules because it would cover all large companies, not just the public reporting ones under the SEC’s jurisdiction.[16] Most U.S. [read post]
25 Jun 2023, 10:54 am by Eugene Volokh
Introduction Decisions not to buy or sell goods or services are generally not protected by the First Amendment. [read post]
17 Jul 2022, 9:05 pm by Stephen M. Bainbridge
Thompson, Preemption and Federalism in Corporate Governance: Protecting Shareholder Rights to Vote, Sell, and Sue, 62 L. [read post]
7 Dec 2021, 8:44 am by Eugene Volokh
"[28] Yet all these cases don't generally explain why they are departing from the norm applicable in other reputational risk cases (except insofar as some of the university cases suggest that young adults should get special protection beyond what older adults get[29]). [read post]
31 Jul 2020, 8:03 am by Schachtman
Third, the database has been sanitized to protect against disclosure of the lawsuit industry’s misdeeds. [read post]
6 Jun 2019, 5:01 am by Eugene Volokh
Like other advocacy, advocacy of boycotts is generally constitutionally protected: NAACP v. [read post]
5 Aug 2017, 5:37 pm
  Access to recorded classes will be controlled via a secure course management platform, such as ANGEL, and will be restricted to students enrolled in the recorded course, the professor, and those University IIT personnel necessary to maintain the system. [read post]
10 Feb 2014, 3:35 pm by Schachtman
“Recognizing that special interests have exploited the nature of science, specifically scientific uncertainty, to delay protective legal and/or regulatory action;” Notice the asymmetry of the accusations; the APHA apparently has no concern for “special interests” that exploit the nature of science by passing off hypotheses as conclusions, and seek to accelerate protective legal and regulatory action by manufacturing faux scientific conclusions. [read post]