Search for: "Brown v. Correctional Medical Services, Inc." Results 1 - 20 of 86
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 Oct 2011, 11:27 am by Dennis Crouch
Scheduled for oral argument on Wednesday, December 7, 2011 In Mayo Collaborative Services v. [read post]
27 Jun 2015, 2:50 pm by MOTP
In a similar vein, albeit based on different reasoning, the Supreme Court recently also approved the removal of claims against nursing homes (and, by extension, all medical malpractice claims) from the court system by blessing arbitration agreements in admission contracts even if they are not compliant with Texas law. [read post]
4 Mar 2012, 12:47 pm by Rick
One of the earliest examples — demonstrating that even the courts would only grudgingly support the will of the voters — came in the case of People v. [read post]
27 Jun 2011, 8:41 am by Kali Borkoski
Brief in opposition of Edmund Brown et al. [read post]
1 Feb 2017, 6:26 am by Matthew L.M. Fletcher
Mercy Medical Center of Durango, 582 F.3d 1216 (10th Cir. 2009) (favoring medical center servicing Indian country clients in antitrust claim) United States v. [read post]
19 Jun 2011, 10:19 am by Blog Editorial
Judgments outstanding The following Supreme Court judgments remain outstanding: JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. and another v Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe (BVG) Anstalt des Oeffentlichen Rechts, heard 11 November 2010 Al Rawi and others (Respondents) v The Security Service and others (Appellants), heard 24 -27 January 2011 Home Office (Appellant) v Tariq (Respondent), heard 24 – 27 January 2011 Perpetual Trustee Company Limited v BNY Corporate Trustee… [read post]
18 Aug 2011, 5:00 am by Bexis
Kelly Services, Inc., 2008 WL 2915113, at *13-14 (E.D. [read post]
1 Sep 2008, 9:46 am
Aug 29, 2008)(Corrected Opinion by Brister) IN RE MCALLEN MEDICAL CENTER, INC., D/B/A MCALLEN MEDICAL CENTER AND UNIVERSAL HEALTH SERVICES, INC.; from Hidalgo County; 13th district(13-05-00441-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 10-05-05)real parties in interest's motion for oral argument deniedcorrected opinion issued Forest Oil Corp v. [read post]