Search for: "Department of Insurance v. Doe"
Results 1821 - 1840
of 2,941
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
31 Mar 2013, 4:45 am
Ward quoted Brian Tabor of the Dallas Police Department who opined, “We have a problem with raising the bar from reasonable suspicion (that does not require a warrant) to probable cause (that does). [read post]
23 Sep 2018, 10:13 am
Massachusetts law does both. [read post]
24 Jan 2014, 12:57 am
The statute, though, does not mention officers. [read post]
1 Jul 2020, 5:16 am
Wong v Yeung-Ha 2020 NY Slip Op 31832(U) June 11, 2020 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: 505276/18, Judge: Karen B. [read post]
29 Apr 2011, 2:44 pm
(Eugene Volokh) That seems to be what happened in Alkhafaji v. [read post]
11 Mar 2022, 6:38 pm
” United States v. [read post]
29 Oct 2009, 9:09 am
Co. v. [read post]
19 May 2011, 8:36 am
The 11th Circuit's en banc decision today in Gilbert v. [read post]
2 Feb 2010, 5:19 am
The operative ruling in this space, United States v. [read post]
29 Jul 2015, 11:30 am
An individual (or team) in the marketing department is assigned to this task. [read post]
6 Jul 2014, 1:08 pm
" More importantly, Justice Kennedy signaled that in his view the assumption is warranted: "[T]he Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) makes the case that the mandate serves the Government’s compelling interest in providing insurance coverage that is necessary to protect the health of female employees, coverage that is significantly more costly than for a male employee. [read post]
16 Sep 2024, 5:02 am
See Johnson v. [read post]
3 Nov 2011, 10:05 pm
., v. [read post]
2 Jun 2015, 9:01 pm
Monday’s ruling in Taylor v. [read post]
28 May 2012, 10:01 pm
Consider the March 29, 2012 decision of the Appellate Division, Third Department, in Hirsch v. [read post]
11 Oct 2016, 2:33 pm
It does not proscribe other transactions between the lender and mortgage insurer. [read post]
9 Sep 2013, 6:36 am
Avola v. [read post]
29 Apr 2014, 7:00 pm
Allstate Insurance Company v. [read post]
21 Mar 2012, 6:06 pm
I Sec. 8 Cl. 18 does not state “for the purposes of Congress”, but the much more restrictive phrase “for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. [read post]
18 Aug 2012, 2:45 pm
In Whitsett v. [read post]
