Search for: "Health & Welfare v. Doe"
Results 121 - 140
of 1,422
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Feb 2019, 6:23 am
Cleveland’s Argument The Eighth District’s decision should be affirmed because R.C. 9.75 does not provide for the comfort, health, safety, or general welfare of employees. [read post]
25 Mar 2008, 12:17 pm
[v] U.S. [read post]
14 Oct 2010, 10:11 am
Sheet Metal Workers Local 441 Health & Welfare Plan v. [read post]
12 Jun 2007, 2:00 pm
Inc. v. [read post]
1 Oct 2013, 12:16 pm
Long before the creation of the Food and Drug Administration, the states exercised the authority to regulate the sale and use of prescription drugs to protect the health and welfare of their citizens. [read post]
14 Nov 2011, 9:45 am
Sebelius, 11-393), and those parties were all before the Eleventh Circuit Court, leading to the decision the government is challenging in its own petition (Health & Human Services Department v. [read post]
7 Nov 2019, 1:17 pm
On October 1, 2019, plaintiffs in Brackeen v. [read post]
13 Oct 2010, 11:40 am
Probably the most famous case is Truax v. [read post]
1 May 2013, 8:00 am
California Health and Welfare Agency (9th Cir. 1983) 704 F.2d 1465 (state and counties were employers under California's IHSS program) and distinguished Moreau v. [read post]
31 Mar 2016, 3:13 pm
Nor does the FAA judge the reasonableness of the cost of regulation against the goal of protecting public health and welfare from aircraft noise. [read post]
11 Mar 2024, 10:00 pm
Health and Welfare Plans. [read post]
15 Jun 2022, 4:49 am
Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (“APHIS”). [read post]
7 Sep 2011, 2:10 pm
In Harlick v. [read post]
20 Mar 2012, 9:03 pm
The Obama Administration defends the constitutionality of these provisions with three separate theories: the requirements are valid under the Commerce Clause, they also can be defended under the Necessary and Proper Clause as it buttresses Congress’s commerce power, and they are a valid form of tax legislation under the General Welfare Clause. [read post]
21 Aug 2015, 6:07 pm
The Supreme Court’s recent King v. [read post]
16 Aug 2022, 9:01 pm
The 1959 case of Bibb v. [read post]
17 May 2010, 1:36 pm
Council v. [read post]
21 Jul 2011, 1:44 pm
In NewPage Wisconsin System Inc. v. [read post]
21 Jun 2011, 7:54 am
Supreme Court reversed the precedent-setting decision in Connecticut v. [read post]
3 Aug 2015, 12:07 pm
While employers can design their group health plans to apply higher out-of-pocket limitations on coverages for non-essential benefits and out-of-network care, employers are cautioned to use care to ensure both that: The plan properly essential and non-essential health benefits, both in terms and in operation; and The application of higher out-of-pocket limitations for non-essential benefits does not violate other federal health plan rules such as special federal… [read post]
