- Legal News Updates
- Law Center
- Legal Business
- Court News Center
- Law Firm News
- Legal Interviews
- Headline News
- Political and Legal
- Practice Focuses
- Legal Spotlight
- Events & Seminars
- Legal Marketing
- Court Watch
- Immigration Law
- Media Center
- Justice Stories
- Court: Man can't be retried for murder after mistrial ruling
- Michigan Democrats back Nessel for state attorney general
- Question of sales tax on online purchases goes to high court
- Supreme Court again refuses to hear Blagojevich appeal
- Court hears case alleging unconstitutional 6th District gerrymander
- Maryland redistricting case comes before Supreme Court
- Courts weighing numerous challenges to political boundaries
- Arkansas wants court to dissolve stay for death row prisoner
- TransCanada doesn't have to pay landowner attorneys
- Martin Shkreli cries in court, is sentenced to 7 years for securities fraud
A three-judge Superior Court panel said there was sufficient evidence at trial to conclude there had been a breach of contract, unjust enrichment and violations of state labor laws.
The judges also ruled in a 211-page opinion that the presiding Philadelphia judge erred in determining some of the plaintiffs' legal fees, and sent that part of the case back for recalculation.
The 2006 trial, which lasted 32 days, resulted in a finding that Wal-Mart did not pay employees for all the work they performed and did not let them take their paid, mandatory rest breaks, the judges wrote. The court awarded $46 million in attorneys' fees.
Wal-Mart spokesman Greg Rossiter said the retail giant believes the court decision was wrong in a number of respects and looks forward to additional review in the courts.
Legal News Media
Legal News Organization press is the top headline legal news provider for lawyers and legalprofessionals. Read law articles and breaking news from law firm's across the United States to get the latest updates. The content contained on the web site has been prepared by Legal News Media as a service to the internet
community and is not intended to constitute legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case or circumstance.