Search for: "Does, A-H"
Results 5741 - 5760
of 16,613
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 May 2009, 7:24 am
(Emphasis supplied.)Insurance Law § 3425(h)(1), too is relevant here, because proof of mailing of a notice of intention not to renew a non-commercial automobile insurance policy constitutes sufficient proof of notice. [read post]
3 Aug 2015, 6:27 am
Not all of the provisions of H 529 afford relief to defendants, however. [read post]
18 Dec 2015, 9:45 am
(f),(h), 21159.22, subds. [read post]
25 Jul 2017, 5:34 am
That the regulation may be inadvisable does not mean it is unlawful. [read post]
9 Apr 2018, 12:59 pm
§78u–6(h)(1)(A)(iii).The question presented: Does the anti-retaliation provision of Dodd-Frank extend to an individual who has not reported a violation of the securities laws to the SEC and therefore falls outside the Act’s definition of “whistleblower”? [read post]
7 Dec 2023, 6:00 pm
Singapore, it appears, does not recognise this doctrine (para 54). [read post]
15 Sep 2014, 7:34 am
Bollin, Holly H. [read post]
14 Feb 2011, 3:51 pm
Berico Technologies, another private security firm, said that it “does not condone or support any effort that proactively targets American firms, organizations or individuals. [read post]
8 Jul 2020, 1:12 pm
Judicial review of the way in which religious schools discharge those responsibilities would undermine the independence of religious institutions in a way that the First Amendment does not tolerate. [read post]
13 Oct 2020, 1:30 pm
The IIRIRA does not, and could not, waive the Department's constitutional obligations. [read post]
5 Aug 2019, 1:39 pm
Congress does not seem to legislate much anymore. [read post]
13 May 2017, 11:48 am
But let’s assume the 16th Amendment does matter. [read post]
11 Jun 2015, 10:31 am
Increasing public awareness about the Court and its decisions does not require the President to comment during judicial deliberations, and Rick never even suggests otherwise. [read post]
19 Dec 2014, 6:45 am
One could perhaps argue that the anti-commandeering rule only applies to Congress, and does not prohibit courts from ordering affirmative relief, but any such argument made here still boils down to the claim that Colorado has an affirmative obligation to regulate a product because the federal government and neighboring states have chosen to make it illegal. [read post]
30 Oct 2014, 9:27 pm
While acknowledging that “the formula used to determine how much financial help Americans are eligible to receive” only references insurance purchased in exchanges “established by the State,” it omits the fact that the Act also defines coverage months for which premium assistance is available as those for insurance purchased on exchanges “established by the State,” nor does it note that these provisions were added at separate times in the drafting… [read post]
5 Apr 2017, 7:40 am
What Politico does not report is that much of the material it was provided did not pan out. [read post]
13 Dec 2020, 8:26 am
Further, when the WEC exercises such authority, it does not in any way violate Article II. [read post]
19 Mar 2014, 1:29 pm
But what is perhaps the most significant of the Obama Administration’s executive actions in stretching the ACA does adversely affect an individual, and litigation on the issue is set to be heard before the Court of Appeals in D.C. on March 25 (Halbig v. [read post]
24 Sep 2020, 1:14 pm
Rather, it will occur when the competing sides of this conflict are willing to recognize the harm this conflict does to the judiciary, and the importance of a more regular and rational confirmation process. [read post]
23 Sep 2020, 10:57 am
Of course there are more seats on the federal bench than there were in the 1970s, so does that make a difference? [read post]
