One measure of a decision's significance is the amount of commentary it generates. By that standard, Brinker Restaurant Corporation, et al. v. Hohnbaum, et al (July 22, 2008) is moving rapidly towards the rarefied air set aside for events like the passage of Proposition 64.  The Complex Litigator has already run several posts on this decision, noting its issuance and summarizing coverage here and here.  To help readers stay on top of the coverage and the dialog, I'm adding to the coverage collection:

• In the last roundup, I noted that Class Action Defense Blog prepared a detailed synopsis of the decision, but I missed its coverage of the Governor's statement about Brinker.
• The OCRegister asks whether companies are following the law on breaks in a July 28, 2008 article by Jan Norman.
• Shaw Valenza has posted what may be a reprint of Gregory Valenza's Daily Journal column.
• Retail Law Observer (who knew?) discusses the shockwave created by Brinker.
• Not to be outdone by Retail Law Observer, Restaurant and Food Service Blog, in a post of uncanny similarity to that by Retail Law Observer, also dicusses the shockwave created by Brinker.
• Sheppard Mullin, suggesting that the Court of Appeal has "clarified" meal and rest break obligations, weighs in on the pro-employer Brinker decision here.
• HR Lori also chimes in with support for the decision and the "Governator's" statement.

I will continue to follow the commentary about Brinker, collecting new articles in further posts as appropriate.  Stay tuned.