Search for: "Barnett v. Social Security Administration" Results 1 - 20 of 30
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Oct 2023, 1:51 am by INFORRM
Internet and Social Media As mentioned above, the Online Safety Bill has been passed by Parliament. [read post]
9 Jul 2022, 6:01 am by Benjamin Pollard
Peter Margulies explained the Supreme Court’s decision in Biden v. [read post]
20 May 2022, 1:56 pm by David Kopel
Randy Barnett and the Commerce Clause Koppelman takes aim a [read post]
30 Jul 2020, 9:05 pm by Joshua Burd
Supreme Court’s Department of Homeland Security v. [read post]
31 May 2019, 6:00 am by Guest Blogger
  “The fact that this decision was apparently political, rather than legal, completely undermines its legitimacy as a precedent,” vented Randy Barnett, counsel for the Republican state officials who brought the case. [read post]
25 Dec 2017, 9:40 pm by The Regulatory Review
Supreme Court’s recent decision in Endrew F. v. [read post]
25 Dec 2017, 9:40 pm by The Regulatory Review
Supreme Court’s recent decision in Endrew F. v. [read post]
15 Mar 2016, 2:14 pm by Brian E. Barreira
Before January 1, 2014, the Office of Medicaid had an official, published position on what the term “available” meant, as under the “Definition of Terms” in 130 CMR 515.001, the term “available” was defined as “a resource that is countable under Title XIX of the Social Security Act. [read post]
15 Mar 2016, 2:14 pm by Brian E. Barreira
Before January 1, 2014, the Office of Medicaid had an official, published position on what the term “available” meant, as under the “Definition of Terms” in 130 CMR 515.001, the term “available” was defined as “a resource that is countable under Title XIX of the Social Security Act. [read post]
21 Feb 2016, 4:28 pm by INFORRM
” The Department of Justice and the Obama administration have joined with the FBI. [read post]
23 Dec 2013, 8:16 am by Eric Goldman
Beckon * Employee Blogging Risks * Employee Terminated for Facebook Message Fails to State Public Policy Claim — Barnett v. [read post]