Search for: "Doe v. Catholic Relief Services" Results 41 - 60 of 92
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Apr 2020, 10:09 am by Amy Howe
In 2017, the Archdiocese of Washington began a campaign to encourage community service and charitable giving during the Advent season and to provide information about services at local Catholic churches. [read post]
28 Feb 2020, 6:55 am by John Elwood
Fish and Wildlife Service v. [read post]
7 Feb 2020, 11:30 am by John Elwood
(rescheduled before the February 15, 2019 and February 22, 2019 conferences; relisted after the March 1, 2019, January 10 and January 17 conferences; likely relisted after the January 24 conference)   Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Juan, Puerto Rico v. [read post]
22 Jan 2020, 7:40 am by John Elwood
(rescheduled before the February 15, 2019, and February 22, 2019, conferences; relisted after the March 1, 2019, January 10 and January 17 conferences) Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Juan, Puerto Rico v. [read post]
14 Jan 2020, 9:07 am by John Elwood
(relisted after the January 10 conference) Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Juan, Puerto Rico v. [read post]
24 Apr 2019, 2:23 pm by John Elwood
So instead, let me say a little bit about one case the court has repeatedly rescheduled and that has garnered some attention: Doe v. [read post]
9 Oct 2017, 9:01 pm by Joanna L. Grossman
While this rule is always reinstated by Republican Presidents (and then withdrawn by Democratic ones), Trump’s version is worded in a way (perhaps carelessly) that increases the scope of the gag rule more than tenfold and does not exempt organizations working to provide HIV/AIDS relief. [read post]
4 Oct 2017, 7:19 am by Amy Howe
Agency for International Development, Oxfam, Save the Children and Catholic Relief Services. [read post]
24 Jul 2017, 7:57 am by Amy Howe
Agency for International Development, Oxfam, Save the Children and Catholic Relief Services. [read post]
19 Jan 2017, 4:11 pm by INFORRM
Finally, the court rejected CG’s contention, relying on Article 1(5) of the e-Commerce Directive, that the e-Commerce Directive does not apply to claims under the DPA. [read post]
5 Sep 2016, 4:28 am by Kenneth Vercammen Esq. Edison
If Hospitaller did not exist or offer appropriate services at the time of Kenneth's death, his estate would pass to the Roman Catholic Diocese of Camden, New Jersey for it to use "as nearly as possible for the intentions expressed herein, that is, for the special education and rehabilitation of the mentally and physically handicapped. [read post]
8 Jun 2016, 6:15 am by Marty Lederman
Ali’s conscientious objection claim: The twists and turns of the administrative process In February 1966, the Selective Service informed Ali that he was, for the first time, eligible for military service. [read post]
3 Jun 2016, 6:15 am
Regarding withholding, compulsory military service does not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution unless the applicant would be disproportionately punished for refusing to serve or would be forced to join an internationally condemned military. [read post]
3 Jun 2016, 6:15 am
Regarding withholding, compulsory military service does not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution unless the applicant would be disproportionately punished for refusing to serve or would be forced to join an internationally condemned military. [read post]
12 Apr 2016, 4:15 am by Howard Friedman
A Michigan federal district court has dismissed on standing and ripeness grounds a challenge to the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services followed by Catholic hospitals. [read post]
22 Jan 2016, 8:34 am
Catholic Health Initiatives, 509 F.3d 517 (U.S.Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit 2007). [read post]
12 Nov 2015, 11:30 am by John Elwood
Burwell, 15-191; and Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington v. [read post]
6 Nov 2015, 8:57 am by John Elwood
Department of Health and Human Services, 14-1453, East Texas Baptist University v. [read post]
5 Nov 2015, 6:00 am by John Ehrett
Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington v. [read post]