Stuart v. RADIOSHACK CORPORATION

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the duty to reimburse under section 2802 arises only 6 after the employer knows the employee has “incurred an expense” (emphasis added)
• “[Bjefore an employer’s duty to reimburse is triggered, it must either know or have reason to know that the employee has incurred an expense.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Tan v. Grubhub, Inc.
  N.D. California· 2016-03-22· cited 56×
• In re AutoZone, Inc.
  N.D. California· 2012-12-21· cited 19×
• Hammitt v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc.
  S.D. California· 2014-05-13· cited 5×
• James v. Dependency Legal Group
  S.D. California· 2015-12-02· cited 5×
• Wilson v. The La Jolla Group
  California Court of Appeal· 2021-03-12

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Morillion v. Royal Packing Co.
  California Supreme Court· 2000-05-10· cited 239×
• Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP
  California Supreme Court· 2008-08-07· cited 202×
• Billy H. Forrester v. Roth's I. G. A. Foodliner, Incorporated, an Oregon Corporation
  Ninth Circuit· 1981-05-29· cited 151×
• Gattuso v. Harte-Hanks Shoppers, Inc.
  California Supreme Court· 2007-11-05· cited 126×
• White v. Starbucks Corp.
  N.D. California· 2007-07-02· cited 39×
• Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court
  California Court of Appeal· 2008-07-22· cited 26×