Search for: "Group Health Inc. v. United States" Results 641 - 660 of 1,210
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Jul 2010, 5:00 am by Bexis
Medtronic, Inc., 552 U.S. 312 (2008), and – depending on the allegation – maybe implied preemption under Buckman Co. v. [read post]
10 Jul 2023, 2:25 am by Matrix Law
McCulloch and others v Forth Valley Health Board (Scotland) [2023] UKSC 26. [read post]
24 Mar 2022, 12:04 pm by Zak Gowen
”[16] Of course, it is hard to imagine that any drug sold in the United States does not enter the stream of California commerce. [read post]
30 Nov 2023, 4:50 am by John Elwood
Bias response and the First Amendment The highest-profile case is undoubtedly Speech First, Inc. v. [read post]
12 Jun 2013, 1:31 pm by WIMS
Appealed from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. [read post]
14 Mar 2015, 3:20 am by WIMS
"  <> Senators Boxer and Markey Introduce TSCA Reform Bill to Protect the Health of Children and Communities - Senators Boxer and Markey introduced the Alan Reinstein and Trevor Schaefer Toxic Chemical Protection Act after consulting with a wide range of leading experts and stakeholders, including public health and environmental organizations, business groups, states, and groups… [read post]
9 Jan 2019, 2:48 pm by John Elwood
United States, 17-778, United States v. [read post]
19 May 2022, 6:03 am by Kevin Kaufman
Sources: Management Science Associates Inc., state revenue departments, author calculations. [read post]
26 Aug 2011, 4:40 pm by Kent Scheidegger
  It decides the fee is not "content based" and therefore the relatively lax standard of United States v. [read post]
16 May 2016, 11:35 am by Mark Walsh
” When she finishes, Justice Sonia Sotomayor is up next with Husky International Electronics Inc. v. [read post]
28 Jun 2013, 10:09 am by Don Cruse
NANCI WILSON, CBS STATIONS GROUP OF TEXAS, L.P., D/B/A KEYE-TV AND VIACOM, INC., No. 11-0228 Opinion of the Court Dissenting The Court revisited its earlier decision in McIlvain v. [read post]
21 Mar 2012, 7:38 pm by Rafael Gonzalez
In order to recover payment made under the subchapter for an item or service, the United States may bring an action against any or all entities that are or were required or responsible (directly, as an insurer or self-insurer, as a third-party administrator, as an employer that sponsors or contributes to a group health plan, or large group health plan, or otherwise) to make payment with respect to the same item or service (or any portion thereof)… [read post]