Search for: "Hobby v. United States" Results 201 - 220 of 449
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Oct 2015, 12:15 pm by John Elwood
United States, 14-150; potential blockbuster Friedrichs v. [read post]
28 Sep 2015, 12:04 pm
Employment Division, Department of Human Resources v. [read post]
25 Aug 2015, 12:45 pm by Ruth Levush
United States (466 U.S. 170, 182-83 (1984)) may also be difficult. [read post]
1 Jun 2015, 4:00 am by Howard Friedman
From SSRN:Gabor Halmai, Religion and Constitutionalism, (MTA Working Paper No. 2015/05 (May 2015)).Elizabeth Pollman, Corporate Law and Theory in Hobby Lobby, (Forthcoming in The Rise of Corporate Religous Liberty (Zoë Robinson, Chad Flanders & Micah Schwartzman, eds., Oxford University Press 2015)).Michael John DeBoer, Legislating Morality Progressively -- The Contraceptive Coverage Mandate, Religious Freedom, and Public Health Policy and Ethics, (Journal of Law and Health, Vol.… [read post]
21 May 2015, 10:19 am by John Elwood
United States, 14-8358, the petitioner, a forty-six-year-old former aerobics instructor who claimed he became addicted to online porn while convalescing from a kidney transplant (it’s a familiar story), pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography. [read post]
7 May 2015, 11:31 am by Schachtman
Olah, “My Search for Carbocations and Their Role in Chemistry,” Nobel Lecture (Dec. 8, 1994), quoting George von Békésy, Experiments in Hearing 8 (N.Y. 1960); see also McMillan v. [read post]
3 May 2015, 9:01 pm by Marci A. Hamilton
” This reference to Hobby Lobby (and the decision in Burwell v. [read post]
1 Apr 2015, 9:56 am
United States (1983), the Supreme Court rejected a university’s claim for a religious exemption from a federal rule that barred race discrimination by tax-exempt organizations. [read post]
30 Mar 2015, 5:04 pm by Sabrina I. Pacifici
That omission was notable given that on the very same day Hobby Lobby was issued, the Supreme Court held in Harris v. [read post]
27 Mar 2015, 9:55 am by John Elwood
  The state asks (1) whether the Michigan courts’ decision not to extend United States v. [read post]