Search for: "Centers v. State" Results 5901 - 5920 of 22,002
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Sep 2017, 1:46 pm by Amy Howe
The group contended that the requirements bore a close resemblance to the Texas rules that the Supreme Court deemed unconstitutional in Whole Woman’s Health v. [read post]
9 Nov 2010, 4:45 am by Ted Frank
Moreover, nothing in the Federal Arbitration Act prohibits state attorneys general from bringing consumer actions against defendants who are actually unfairly treating a class of consumers. [read post]
9 Apr 2018, 3:11 am by Scott Bomboy
Scott Bomboy is the editor in chief of the National Constitution Center. [read post]
10 Jul 2014, 9:58 pm
In 1992, the Supreme Court of the United States heard a case called Quill v. [read post]
23 Dec 2022, 4:06 am by Walton Law Firm
According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, this case “raises the issue of whether Medicaid beneficiaries can seek relief in federal court when they believe their rights are being violated by state officials, or whether enforcement of state compliance with federal Medicaid rules should be left solely to the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). [read post]
23 Dec 2022, 4:06 am by Walton Law Firm
According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, this case “raises the issue of whether Medicaid beneficiaries can seek relief in federal court when they believe their rights are being violated by state officials, or whether enforcement of state compliance with federal Medicaid rules should be left solely to the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). [read post]
1 May 2009, 11:22 pm
Apple said jailbreaking would amount to such a major modification - for example with apps turning the iPhone into a WiFi center — that the law does not permit it. [read post]
5 Mar 2008, 6:38 am
Last week, the Court handed Riegel v Medtronic, 128 S. [read post]
29 Apr 2009, 5:00 am
The Reply is centered around five arguments: (1) The SEC’s position is not supported by the Supreme Court’s O’Hagan decision, (2) State law should be applied to determine the existence of a fiduciary duty, (3) A confidentiality agreement alone is insufficient to create the requisite duty, (4) Rule 10b5-2(b)(1) is invalid if construed as creating liability in the absence of a fiduciary duty, and (5) Rule 10b5-2(b)(1) does not apply to business… [read post]
17 Sep 2009, 3:23 am
 The 6th District’s decision last week in State v. [read post]
16 Dec 2010, 1:59 am
In this editorial, published in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Emerging Infectious Diseases journal (January 2011), the journal's associate editor Dr. [read post]
30 Jan 2019, 7:22 am by Gillian Metzger
Northwest Environmental Defense Center in 2013 and Perez v. [read post]