Search for: "State v. Doctor" Results 1681 - 1700 of 9,594
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Mar 2020, 1:38 am by Rose Hughes
The Certificate stated that the SPC would have a term of just under 3 years, expiring in January 2022, subject to the payment of the appropriate fees. [read post]
22 Mar 2020, 6:51 am by Kaufman Dolowich Voluck
  New York State’s Empire State Development (the “NYSESD”) has issued guidance as to what industries and businesses constitute essential services who are exempt from the requirement that 100% of the workforce must stay home. [read post]
22 Mar 2020, 6:51 am by Kaufman Dolowich Voluck
New York State’s Empire State Development (the “NYSESD”) has issued guidance as to what industries and businesses constitute essential services who are exempt from the requirement that 100% of the workforce must stay home. [read post]
21 Mar 2020, 9:45 am by Amir Cahane
Several nongovernmental organizations challenged the constitutionality of the regulations in the Israeli High Court of Justice, which issued an interim order in Ben Meir v. [read post]
19 Mar 2020, 9:48 am
Also eligible would be those who have been told by a doctor or government official to stay home because of exposure or symptoms. [read post]
19 Mar 2020, 3:00 am by silverman_admin
The first case in the United States was Jacobs v. [read post]
18 Mar 2020, 2:37 pm by Laura Becking
Good to Know · Restrictions: Restrictions have been adopted at provincial level to prevent the spread of the COVID-19 with a state of emergency declared in Ontario. [read post]
16 Mar 2020, 10:14 am by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.
In a brief opinion, the Court substantially adopted the Appellate Division’s reasoning in Wild v. [read post]
16 Mar 2020, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
For example, in Planned Parenthood v. [read post]
15 Mar 2020, 8:59 pm by Omar Ha-Redeye
More importantly, they state that it is medically desirable to do so. [read post]
12 Mar 2020, 1:55 pm by Maxine Neuhauser
In a brief  opinion, the Court substantially adopted the Appellate Division’s reasoning in Wild v. [read post]