Search for: "FIDELIS CARE" Results 501 - 520 of 1,335
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
12 Jul 2017, 3:50 am by Kevin LaCroix
Just like Clayton Consultants, the team advising a ransomware victim company, whether a hospital or global corporate conglomerate, must employ a thoughtful, careful and methodical protocol to survive the ransomware crisis. [read post]
6 Jul 2017, 6:07 pm by Lisa Milam-Perez
The Supreme Court closed out a rather anti-climactic term, employment law-wise, in June. [read post]
2 Jul 2017, 9:21 am by Peter Margulies
That assurance embodies a commitment to caring and effective assistance that the volag has demonstrated over time. [read post]
30 Jun 2017, 5:00 am by Gene Takagi
Supreme Court temporarily lifted legal blocks on President Trump’s travel (Muslim) ban, subject to certain exceptions, including for people with “bona fide relationships” in the United States. [read post]
30 Jun 2017, 4:14 am by Edith Roberts
” Additional commentary on the guidelines comes from Adam Cox and Ryan Goodman at Just Security, Leah Litman at Take Care, and Marty Lederman at Just Security here and here. [read post]
29 Jun 2017, 9:30 pm by Sarah Madigan
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) announced that a vote on legislation to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act would be delayed until after the July 4 recess. [read post]
29 Jun 2017, 7:28 am by Quinta Jurecic
Any applicant who has a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. [read post]
29 Jun 2017, 6:51 am by Joshua Barajas
They will also have to prove they have a “bona fide relationship” with a person or entity in the U.S. or that they are eligible for another waiver. [read post]
29 Jun 2017, 4:45 am by EEM
Travel ban news:On 26 June 2017, the Supreme Court "agreed to evaluate the [travel ban case] next term, and, in the meantime," said that "certain people should be allowed to come to the United States, as long as they have what the court called 'a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States'. [read post]
27 Jun 2017, 11:05 am by Goldstein & Stamm, P.A.
 Trump claimed this was a victory, but a careful reading of the majority opinion reveals otherwise. [read post]
27 Jun 2017, 11:05 am by Goldstein & Stamm, P.A.
 Trump claimed this was a victory, but a careful reading of the majority opinion reveals otherwise. [read post]
27 Jun 2017, 6:25 am by Joshua Barajas
High court decision to hear travel ban case scores win for Trump Untangling politics of health care, Russian interference It’s unclear what will ultimately constitute a “bona fide relationship,” though the ruling suggested that an American job, school enrollment or a close relative could meet that threshold. [read post]
26 Jun 2017, 12:04 pm by Jane Chong
  "Bona Fide Relationship" The Court goes so far as to define what it means when it says the stay is lifted only as to aliens with a “bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. [read post]
21 Jun 2017, 3:59 am
An applicant's capacity to make or market the involved goods is evidence supporting a bona fide intent to use. [read post]
12 Jun 2017, 9:01 am by Camilla Alexandra Hrdy
Certification marks provide (in Fromer's apt phrasing) "shorthand information to consumers that certified goods or services comply with standards about which [consumers] might care[.] [read post]
6 Jun 2017, 10:33 am by HRWatchdog
SB 562 (Lara; D-Bell Gardens) — Creates a new single-payer government-run, multibillion-dollar health care system financed by an unspecified and undeveloped “revenue plan” which could penalize responsible employers and individuals and could result in significant new taxes on all Californians and California businesses. [read post]
2 Jun 2017, 1:34 pm by Josh Blackman
In my view, a careful review of Mandel and its progeny is essential to understanding where the Fourth Circuit deviated from precedent. [read post]
2 Jun 2017, 8:25 am by Quinta Jurecic
” Responding on Take Care, Leah Litman, Helen Murillo, and Steve Vladeck take the position that the question of whether Trump’s statements are permissibly the subject of judicial analysis is a purely legal issue, entirely distinct any discomfort judges may have with the fact of Trump’s presidency. [read post]