Search for: "State v. Losee"
Results 9001 - 9020
of 14,203
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Jun 2012, 3:37 pm
ANTOINE SMITH, Appellant, v. [read post]
29 Jun 2012, 1:55 pm
Such pre-New Deal decisions as United States v. [read post]
29 Jun 2012, 8:05 am
The law now is that states can opt in and get the extra money, or opt out without losing the money they're already receiving from the federal government for Medicaid. [read post]
29 Jun 2012, 5:26 am
Back in 2005, in Gonzalez v. [read post]
29 Jun 2012, 5:19 am
See NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS v. [read post]
29 Jun 2012, 4:09 am
On this all agree The Anti Injunction Act Does not bar challenge Commerce Clause can’t save Individual mandate But Taxing Clause does Medicaid changes States can’t lose existing funds New programs opt-out Opinion: pdf html [read post]
29 Jun 2012, 2:58 am
The Court did reject a provision of PPACA requiring states to comply with new eligibility requirements for Medicaid or risk losing their existing Medicaid funding, but the fundamental core of the law was upheld and remains intact. [read post]
28 Jun 2012, 10:30 pm
Chief Justice John Marshall wrote almost two hundred years ago in Gibbons v. [read post]
28 Jun 2012, 5:19 pm
In contrast, the monies are issue in South Dakota v. [read post]
28 Jun 2012, 2:47 pm
The case in question, Wright v. [read post]
28 Jun 2012, 10:39 am
Chief Justice Roberts provided the deciding vote in the case titled National Federation of Independent Business v. [read post]
28 Jun 2012, 9:33 am
States that fail to prepare and implement adequate SIPs, for example, can lose federal highway funds. [read post]
28 Jun 2012, 8:32 am
Not losing weight. [read post]
28 Jun 2012, 8:10 am
Supreme Court granted certiorari in Marx v. [read post]
28 Jun 2012, 7:53 am
The States are given no such choice in this case: They must either accept a basic change in the nature of Medicaid, or risk losing all Medicaid funding. [read post]
28 Jun 2012, 6:00 am
Lastly, if the expansion of Medicaid forced states to accept the law, or else risk losing large amounts of federal funding. [read post]
27 Jun 2012, 10:01 pm
Hardin v. [read post]
27 Jun 2012, 11:33 am
Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement Systems v. [read post]
27 Jun 2012, 5:35 am
The losing states and industry groups already have said they will ask the U.S. [read post]
27 Jun 2012, 1:15 am
Another potentially significant wild card is the Lingamfelter v. [read post]
