Search for: "Department of Insurance v. Doe" Results 1081 - 1100 of 2,940
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 Oct 2010, 6:48 pm by Richard Montes
” The Third Department looked to Saxton v. [read post]
17 Mar 2023, 2:01 pm by Edward T. Kang
Erie Insurance, 630 Pa. 79 (2014) finally adopted the gist of the action doctrine and the view expressed by Becker. [read post]
17 Mar 2023, 1:59 pm by Edward T. Kang
Erie Insurance, 630 Pa. 79 (2014) finally adopted the gist of the action doctrine and the view expressed by Becker. [read post]
19 Jun 2019, 4:07 am by Edith Roberts
Subscript Law has a graphic explainer for Monday’s opinion in Gamble v. [read post]
6 Oct 2010, 9:05 am by Bill
In HealthNow New York, Inc. v. [read post]
22 Jul 2010, 8:15 pm by JB
The mandate does not really exist separate from the penalty. [read post]
30 Dec 2015, 12:17 pm by Lyle Denniston
  He does not have health insurance, and does not want to either buy a policy, as he is required to do under the ACA mandate, or pay a financial penalty to the government. [read post]
7 Apr 2010, 7:27 am
The decision of the Appellate Division, Third Department, in Aures v Buffalo Board of Education, 272 A.D.2d 664, involved just such a situation.In Aures, the employer, the Buffalo City School District, failed to appear at an unem­ployment insurance hearing as scheduled. [read post]