Search for: "WOODS v STATE FUND"
Results 181 - 200
of 398
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Jun 2014, 1:39 pm
Instead, the initial question on the merits is whether, notwithstanding the absence of any such legal duty, the state nevertheless imposes “substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs," Thomas v. [read post]
4 Jun 2014, 7:41 pm
Mullin Wood Co., 274 So. 2d 845, 846-47 (La. [read post]
22 May 2014, 8:40 am
Appeals Court Environmental Decisions <> Larry Klein v. [read post]
25 Apr 2014, 7:03 am
The case is Bennett v. [read post]
24 Mar 2014, 10:56 am
To be sure, he also cites one Pennsylvania case--Barium Steel Corp. v. [read post]
25 Feb 2014, 8:16 am
Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. [read post]
21 Feb 2014, 2:10 pm
In the end, a substantial minority of states (eight of the twenty-six) adopted coverage requirements with no religious exemption at all, and only two states explicitly excepted emergency contraception such as Plan B and ella, the drugs to which Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties object. [read post]
19 Feb 2014, 4:52 am
(Indeed, there's no allegation that the Greens even are shareholders of the two companies, or that "their" funds would be indirectly used to make the reimbursement payments: Hobby Lobby and Martel are operated by trusts.) [read post]
28 Jan 2014, 3:36 pm
Indeed, it’s not even clear that that is a federal question; it would appear to turn, instead, on matters of state corporation law--here, the laws of Pennsylvania (Conestoga Wood) and, perhaps, of Oklahoma (Hobby Lobby). 6. [read post]
12 Jan 2014, 10:51 am
An example of a general legacy is “I give [pounds] 100 to X”: Wood Estate v. [read post]
1 Jan 2014, 6:40 pm
Co. v. [read post]
16 Dec 2013, 6:36 am
Moreover, with respect to that one of the two options a RFRA claim is virtually foreclosed by the Court’s unanimous 1982 decision in United States v. [read post]
13 Dec 2013, 2:36 am
(See, e.g., paragraph 109 of the Hobby Lobby complaint, and paragraphs 30 and 92 of the Conestoga Wood complaint.)In medical and scientific circles, pr [read post]
5 Dec 2013, 7:38 pm
Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. [read post]
19 Nov 2013, 7:04 pm
Wood v. [read post]
18 Nov 2013, 3:07 pm
Indeed, Eugene V. [read post]
30 Oct 2013, 9:01 pm
The Supreme Court absolutely got it right in Employment Div. v. [read post]
26 Jul 2013, 5:17 am
This time it's a confrontation clause issue in United States v. [read post]
12 Apr 2013, 12:30 pm
” State ex rel. [read post]
12 Apr 2013, 8:35 am
That's forcing places like the United States and Europe to fund the development of the drug. [read post]
