Search for: "Government Employees Insurance Company v. Smith"
Results 21 - 40
of 132
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Dec 2013, 7:28 pm
” As you can see, these claims appear to depend upon at least four predicate assumptions or allegations: (i) that federal law requires the companies in question to offer their employees access to a medical insurance plan; (ii) that the HHS Rule requires such an insurance plan to provide for coverage of “abortifacients”; (iii) that the companies’ provision of such insurance coverage would require the individual owners… [read post]
24 Mar 2015, 11:45 am
The United States Supreme Court actually rejected the notion that the Federal Government can require an individual to purchase health insurance in a now-famous 2012 decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts in National Federation of Independent Business et al. v. [read post]
Texas Supreme Court Finds Injured Contract Worker Was an Employee for Workers’ Compensation Purposes
17 Jun 2021, 1:51 pm
Inc. v. [read post]
5 Jul 2016, 4:00 am
JonesLabor and Employment Law, Government and Administrative Law, Insurance Law Supreme Court of Texas McDonnell v. [read post]
27 May 2011, 7:34 am
Importantly, Rich offers a great checklist of employee v. independent contractor that all business owners should be looking at. [read post]
2 Dec 2011, 4:02 am
Mr Ravat’s contractual documentation stated that his employment was governed by UK legislation. [read post]
6 Aug 2013, 10:26 am
In Sun Capital Partners III, L.P. et al. v. [read post]
14 Jan 2011, 7:47 am
Government Employees Insurance Co., ___F.3d___ (D.C. [read post]
16 Apr 2007, 7:23 am
OpinionPub DateShort Title/District 07a0130p.06 2007/04/09 Smith v. [read post]
6 Jul 2014, 1:08 pm
" More importantly, Justice Kennedy signaled that in his view the assumption is warranted: "[T]he Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) makes the case that the mandate serves the Government’s compelling interest in providing insurance coverage that is necessary to protect the health of female employees, coverage that is significantly more costly than for a male employee. [read post]
24 Jun 2015, 9:01 pm
Judge Smith’s decision correctly relied upon the Supreme Court’s First Amendment decisions in Bowen v. [read post]
20 Aug 2011, 4:00 am
Decisions of interest involving Government and Administrative Law Source: Justia August 19, 2011Briscoe v. [read post]
13 Mar 2010, 7:14 am
Government Employees Insurance Co., No. 08-7146 (D.C. [read post]
5 Aug 2007, 5:35 am
Grosse Pointe Park Eastern District of Michigan at DetroitJULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. [read post]
1 Nov 2010, 11:26 am
Smith JJ.A.This is a companion appeal to Insurance Co. of the State of Pennsylvania v. [read post]
18 Dec 2019, 4:00 pm
This Client Advisory, originally distributed in December 2019, highlights important developments in the law governing employee benefit plans and executive compensation over the past year. [read post]
8 Sep 2011, 4:44 am
The defendants allegedly marketed the clinics through their company, ARC Health, at malls and employee health fairs that targeted individuals insured by certain health care benefit programs. [read post]
8 Sep 2011, 4:44 am
The defendants allegedly marketed the clinics through their company, ARC Health, at malls and employee health fairs that targeted individuals insured by certain health care benefit programs. [read post]
3 Nov 2008, 1:25 pm
" Additionally, since the individual salespeople were not Northern employees, Smith believed that company's officers couldn't be "blamed for any trickery in which the salespeople engaged. [read post]
22 Feb 2016, 4:36 pm
In 1968, a court decision, Escott v. [read post]
