Search for: "State v. D. H." Results 2441 - 2460 of 3,857
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Apr 2022, 1:05 am by Rose Hughes
The current Guidelines for Examination require substantial amendments such that the description does not contradict the allowable claims (H-V, 2.7 and F-IV, 4.3(iii)). [read post]
20 Jan 2022, 2:01 pm by John Elwood
” In 2002, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services promulgated a regulation identifying three criteria that “[a]ctuarially sound” payments must satisfy: the payment amounts must “[h]ave been developed in accordance with generally accepted actuarial principles”; those amounts must be “appropriate for the populations to be covered, and the services to be furnished”; and, at issue here, the payment amounts must “[h]ave been… [read post]
1 Sep 2017, 3:22 pm by Eugene Volokh
That’s the hot, exciting subject of Wednesday’s Nevada federal district court decision in Alexander v. [read post]
8 Oct 2011, 4:36 am by rnahoum
(d) Abusive debt collection practices are carried on to a substantial extent in interstate commerce and through means and instrumentalities of such commerce. [read post]
8 May 2014, 5:00 am
Fla. 2009), aff’d, 634 F.3d 1296 (11th Cir. 2011); Rohlik v. [read post]
26 May 2011, 8:22 am by WSLL
Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; D. [read post]
25 Jan 2024, 2:51 pm by Kevin LaCroix
[v] Client and Employee Poaching Claims A common claim noticed under private company D&O policies and one that often raises the question of Section 533’s applicability involves an insured’s liability for poaching clients or employees from a competitor. [read post]
11 Mar 2022, 4:22 am by Oscar Davies and Jack Castle
In R (on the application of Elan-Cane) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] UKSC 56, [2021] All ER (D) 53 (Dec), the Supreme Court found there was no positive obligation on the state to provide the option of an ‘X’ gender category on passports. [read post]
7 Jul 2008, 5:00 am
Ct. 1057 (2007), State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. [read post]
31 Aug 2020, 1:21 pm by Eugene Volokh
An affidavit of the kind at issue here is not exempt from public disclosure under state, federal, or the common law, and does not otherwise fall within any of the exceptions set forth in Sup.R. 44(C)(2)(b), (d)-(h). [read post]