Search for: "Community Health Choice, Inc. v. United States"
Results 121 - 140
of 211
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Jun 2015, 6:16 am
Allergan, Inc., 2015 U.S. [read post]
22 Sep 2022, 3:25 am
In its complaint in EEOC v. [read post]
21 Jan 2021, 12:54 pm
In briefs in both cases last month, the outgoing acting solicitor general, Jeffrey Wall, urged the justices to grant cert and vacate the court of appeals’ decisions (both of which went against Trump) under United States v. [read post]
9 Feb 2012, 5:00 am
” See, e.g., Maine Ass’n of Interdependent Neighborhoods, Inc. v. [read post]
8 Sep 2016, 7:40 am
The second is the continued incoherence in the Ethics COuncil's approach to remedial choice. [read post]
19 May 2021, 12:47 pm
United States, 20-6387, involving prohibitions on delay in prosecution of criminal cases; three-time relist Allen v. [read post]
26 Sep 2022, 7:59 pm
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division (EEOC v. [read post]
14 Jun 2012, 7:15 am
United States. [read post]
22 Mar 2021, 8:01 am
Mike Nagata, senior vice president of CACI International Inc.; retired Lt. [read post]
13 Nov 2007, 7:03 am
The Pennsylvania cerebral palsy resource guide was compiled by United Cerebral Palsy. [read post]
13 Aug 2021, 4:00 am
They and other national and local GOP officials cast their opposition to such measures as an effort to protect personal choice. [read post]
22 Nov 2023, 10:36 am
Most recently, in Abitron Austria GmbH v. [read post]
16 Dec 2009, 8:53 am
Discretionary Approvals In Health First v. [read post]
29 Dec 2008, 9:53 pm
Additionally, the state health officer (a physician) made a statement directed at consumers and retailers (restaurants, grocery stores): “I hope you will purchase irradiated chicken and ground beef as they become available. [read post]
28 Jun 2021, 9:45 am
& Health Servs. v. [read post]
23 Mar 2023, 5:31 am
District Court in TikTok Inc. et al. v. [read post]
15 Dec 2018, 7:41 am
In Texas v. [read post]
21 May 2015, 10:19 am
United States – holding that where a juror has communicated with a third party “about the matter pending before the jury,” an evidentiary hearing must be held to determine the prejudicial impact of the communication – was an unreasonable application of the Supreme Court’s clearly established law. [read post]
19 Apr 2011, 11:09 am
Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576 (2008), failed to answer this question. [read post]
18 Apr 2011, 9:57 am
Supreme CourtMatrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. [read post]
