Search for: "THE FIRST LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION"
Results 281 - 300
of 496
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Jul 2014, 9:01 pm
In both contexts, “depersonifying” corporations could endanger the liberty of natural persons. [read post]
11 Jul 2014, 7:43 am
The post Supreme Courts Around the World: US Corporate Personhood and Religious Expression appeared first on UKSCBlog. [read post]
9 Jul 2014, 9:01 pm
Over time, I gathered facts, started files, and wrote the first edition of God vs. the Gavel. [read post]
9 Jul 2014, 8:36 am
They therefore object on religious grounds to providing health insurance that covers methods of birth control that . . . [read post]
7 Jul 2014, 10:18 am
Why not broadly held public corporations, if the corporate bylaws make religious views a governing part of the corporation’s purpose? [read post]
6 Jul 2014, 1:08 pm
As the Court put the point in its introductory summary, extension of the HHS secondary accommodation to for-profit enterprises "constitutes an alternative that achieves all of the Government's aims while providing greater respect for religious liberty. [read post]
2 Jul 2014, 7:19 am
The Court in that case held that no First Amendment violation occurs when prohibiting the exercise of religion is an incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid regulation. [read post]
1 Jul 2014, 12:18 pm
As damaging as the Court’s ruling is for affected employees and their families, it must first be noted that, for the vast majority of covered employees and their families in the U.S., insurance coverage for contraception still is legally guaranteed. [read post]
1 Jul 2014, 12:05 pm
In the lower courts and in the initial round of Supreme Court briefing, the administration placed almost all of its chips in the first (“who is protected by RFRA”) category, arguing that for-profit corporations categorically were not protected by, and could not assert a claim under, RFRA. [read post]
30 Jun 2014, 4:14 pm
Third, the insurance companies. [read post]
30 Jun 2014, 2:59 pm
First I offer some highlights from the opinions by Justice Alito and Justice Kennedy, and then I point out some near-term effects on religious liberty litigation. [read post]
30 Jun 2014, 2:46 pm
As the Fourth Circuit put it in Liberty University, Inc. v. [read post]
30 Jun 2014, 2:17 pm
First, RFRA was intended to apply very broadly, and the purpose of protecting corporations is to protect the rights of the people associated with the corporation. [read post]
30 Jun 2014, 11:17 am
“[P]rotecting the free-exercise rights of corporations like Hobby Lobby … protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control those companies. [read post]
30 Jun 2014, 10:47 am
First, it notes that the government could assume the cost of providing the contraceptives to women who are unable to obtain coverage because of their employer’s religious objections. [read post]
30 Jun 2014, 9:14 am
The Court noted that its decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate, not all insurance-coverage mandates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions.The post Justia Resources and Commentary on the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby Decision appeared first on Justia Law, Technology & Legal Marketing Blog. [read post]
30 Jun 2014, 4:50 am
The Court holds that there is no "employer mandate" and that federal law does not require the corporations to provide insurance coverage for contraceptive services. [read post]
24 Jun 2014, 5:20 am
Pension Benefits Guaranty Corporation, a challenge by a group of retired USAirways pilots to the PBGC’s role as the trustee for the terminated pension plans that it insures. [read post]
19 Jun 2014, 6:58 pm
Liberty Surplus Insurance Corporation, Cal. [read post]
28 May 2014, 9:01 pm
RFRA’s hidden dangers finally became evident to the general public when secular, for-profit corporations invoked it to deny contraceptive insurance coverage to their female employees. [read post]
