Search for: "Birth v. Birth"
Results 4321 - 4340
of 7,219
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Jan 2014, 5:55 am
Last June, in Shelby County v. [read post]
16 Jan 2014, 6:50 am
Anthony List v. [read post]
15 Jan 2014, 5:22 am
Takacs v. [read post]
15 Jan 2014, 4:53 am
We now have proof of the blood’s source (the birth of Obaydullah’s daughter) that undermines that key evidence, she says. [read post]
14 Jan 2014, 6:57 am
The style of the case is, May v. [read post]
14 Jan 2014, 5:39 am
Mary Daniel and Thomas Daniel, Sr. v. [read post]
13 Jan 2014, 8:27 pm
A military commission defense counsel investigation into the matter identified family member witnesses who could confirm the source of the blood as not coming from al Qaeda fighters injured in an accidental IED explosion as the government had argued, and instead from the birth of Obaydullah’s daughter. [read post]
12 Jan 2014, 9:01 pm
Wood, Supervising Judge of the Matrimonial Part of the Westchester County Supreme Court, in his December 17, 2013 decision in Medina v. [read post]
9 Jan 2014, 1:37 pm
Kendall v. [read post]
9 Jan 2014, 5:30 am
The case of R. v. [read post]
8 Jan 2014, 3:29 pm
Jones v. [read post]
8 Jan 2014, 10:42 am
Sebelius (consolidated for one hour of argument) – whether the Affordable Care Act’s mandate that employee health plans include birth control and other pregnancy-related services violates the religious rights of corporations and their owners Wednesday, March 26: Wood v. [read post]
8 Jan 2014, 10:03 am
Guzzo v. [read post]
7 Jan 2014, 6:52 am
Briefly: In an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal, Floyd Abrams previews this month’s oral arguments in McCullen v. [read post]
6 Jan 2014, 12:52 pm
The case is Sutton v. [read post]
6 Jan 2014, 12:20 pm
In the recent case Gatto v. [read post]
6 Jan 2014, 6:26 am
In some respects, that 2007 decision in Gonzales v. [read post]
6 Jan 2014, 6:02 am
Siegel and Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. [read post]
4 Jan 2014, 7:43 pm
The government’s idea, of course, was to put a clear gap between the religious group and ultimate access to birth control and related health benefits. [read post]
1 Jan 2014, 2:24 pm
The government's explanation for this exemption is, in effect, that because such employers typically can and do prefer to hire employees who are coreligionists who can be assumed to share the churches' religious commitments, such employees are less likely to wish to purchase birth control: "[H]ouses of worship and their integrated auxiliaries that object to contraceptive coverage on religious grounds are more likely than other employers to employ people of the same faith… [read post]
