Search for: "State v. Risk" Results 481 - 500 of 28,554
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Feb 2023, 1:45 pm by Jason E. Christ
CMS reasoned that while the Social Security Act (the Act) requires actuarial equivalence between FFS and MA, the Act only applies to how CMS calculates the risk adjustment made to MAO payments and not to the obligation of MAOs to return improper payments, leveraging recent case law (UnitedHealthcare Insurance Co. v. [read post]
20 Feb 2025, 8:33 am by Joel R. Brandes
California, 2025)[Italy][Petition granted][Grave risk of harm not established][Coercion not established] Aguirre v Hernandez, 2024 WL 4879400 (United States District Court, D. [read post]
25 Jun 2018, 2:05 pm by Bill Amadeo
The United States Supreme Court sent shock waves to the criminal defense community with their decision in Carpenter V. [read post]
Firstly, the authorities are unclear on what percentage of the population has to be at risk before a country is removed from the white list (in R (Husan) v SSHD [2005] EWHC 189 Admin 1% of the population was considered ‘significant’, yet in Singh v SSHD & Anor [2001] EWHC 925 (Admin), 0.76% of the population was not). [read post]
5 Mar 2008, 9:32 am
  It does state that current risk assessments may be adequate for the soluble form of nanoparticles.The question of risk assessment is coming more and more to the forefront, both in Europe and in the United States. [read post]
29 Jan 2012, 4:50 am by Danielle Citron
The Supreme Court’s decision last week in United States v. [read post]
8 Sep 2009, 3:00 am
Recent investment cases such as Canadian Cattlemen for Fair Trade v. [read post]
25 Mar 2011, 10:16 am by WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF
United States District Court CIVIL OPINIONS Constitutional Law Right to bear arms A lawsuit alleging that the Wisconsin Gun Free School Zone Act violates the right to bear arms states a claim for relief. [read post]
6 Aug 2023, 2:09 pm by Joel R. Brandes
 [France][Petition granted][ Consent and Grave risk of harm not established] Peyre v McGary, 2023 WL 3726728. [read post]
29 Jul 2013, 2:26 am
 If, in response, to BMS's request regarding its launch plans Teva disclosed its actual state of mind then the judge considered it would have said that "it had no plans to launch efavirnez before expiry but was actively considering the option of doing so". [read post]