Search for: "Doctor v. State"
Results 1861 - 1880
of 8,645
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Oct 2009, 8:09 am
(website omitted due to Blogger limitations; see article) (last visited Aug. 11. 2009) Private studies have flatly rejected a correlation between states that have enacted damage caps and premium rates for doctors. [read post]
5 Oct 2016, 4:03 am
In the case, Parr v. [read post]
11 Mar 2022, 11:54 am
United States and Kahn v. [read post]
19 Mar 2019, 8:10 am
Facts: This case (Annese v. [read post]
26 Aug 2011, 8:18 am
You can read the full opinion in Brandau v. [read post]
28 May 2010, 2:45 pm
(See TBCI PC v. [read post]
21 Jul 2021, 12:00 am
Some readers might be wondering why there is even a constitutional defense available to a doctor in a case in which a pro-life plaintiff sues the doctor in state court under S.B. 8. [read post]
25 Oct 2021, 9:39 am
Many states have criminalized abortion after a doctor could detect fetal cardiac activity, but Texas authorized lawsuits against abortion doctors and anyone else who “aids or abets” them. [read post]
23 Aug 2021, 1:00 pm
(See Miranda v. [read post]
AMICUS CURIAE POSITION ADVOCATED FOR PENNSYLVANIA DEFENSE INSTITUTE PREVAILS AT SUPERIOR COURT LEVEL
16 Sep 2010, 7:31 pm
Now, with Barrick v. [read post]
3 Aug 2009, 10:04 am
Matter of Vivian Gina Giovanna Mihailescu, M.D. v James G. [read post]
10 Jul 2024, 4:05 am
P.A. v. [read post]
5 May 2022, 4:51 pm
AP: “It took two trips over state lines, navigating icy roads and a patchwork of state laws, for a 32-year-old South Dakota woman to get abortion pills last year. [read post]
28 Jun 2019, 10:00 am
Such a threat can only drive doctors away from treating pregnant Georgians. [read post]
25 Mar 2024, 6:38 pm
” Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court Rekindles Abortion Debate as Election Fight Looms; Cases involve access to abortion pill, state limits on doctors; Abortion becoming key campaign topic before November vote. [read post]
22 Nov 2012, 6:26 pm
Polansky v. [read post]
20 Mar 2014, 9:13 pm
Div., Inc., 442 F.3d 919, 929-33 (5th Cir. 2006) (state law duty to train medical personnel in use of PMA device preempted as state requirement additional to FDA regulatory scheme). [read post]
3 Feb 2020, 11:56 am
Craig v. [read post]
3 Apr 2012, 7:26 pm
In Ellis et al. v. [read post]
13 Sep 2020, 7:34 pm
Bent v. [read post]
