Search for: "Burwell v. Burwell" Results 881 - 900 of 1,518
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 May 2015, 5:33 am by Lyle Denniston
  (The Justices ruling came last June in Burwell v. [read post]
20 May 2015, 9:01 pm by Neil H. Buchanan
“The Paranoid Style in American Politics,” first published in Harper’s Magazine in 1964, is an essay by the historian Richard J. [read post]
20 May 2015, 7:03 am by Lyle Denniston
This marked the first time that a federal appeals court had rejected a claim that the Supreme Court’s ruling last June in the case of Burwell v. [read post]
20 May 2015, 4:10 am by Howard Friedman
Deciding the case on remand from the Supreme Court (see prior posting), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision in University of Notre Dame v. [read post]
19 May 2015, 6:45 am by Amy Howe
Burwell that tax subsidies are not available to individuals who purchase their health insurance on an exchange established by the federal government. [read post]
8 May 2015, 1:23 pm by Native American Rights Fund
Burwell (Indian Health Service - Contracts; Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act)Vogel v. [read post]
5 May 2015, 3:45 am by Amy Howe
Burwell, arguing that “a ruling striking down the president’s actions is crucial to ensure the continued vitality of the rule of law. [read post]
3 May 2015, 9:01 pm by Marci A. Hamilton
” This reference to Hobby Lobby (and the decision in Burwell v. [read post]
1 May 2015, 12:30 am by Thaddeus Mason Pope, J.D., Ph.D.
Burwell - Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation, Co-Sponsored by Law, Medicine and Health Care  Plus, other sections (e.g. aging, antitrust) may also have programming related to health law. [read post]
28 Apr 2015, 4:00 am by Howard Friedman
Burwell, (Docket No. 14-701) (Order List) granted certiorari, vacated the judgment below and remanded the case to the 6th Circuit for further consideration in light of Burwell v. [read post]
25 Apr 2015, 11:57 am
More than a half-dozen competing plans have already been put forward in response to the King v. [read post]