Search for: "Government Employees Insurance Co. v. Grounds" Results 21 - 40 of 320
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Apr 2024, 9:01 pm by Michael C. Dorf
Burwell, the U.S Supreme Court held that the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) entitled a closely held for-profit corporation to an exemption from the mandate to provide employees with health insurance that includes coverage for contraception on the ground that the company’s owners regarded some methods of contraception as tantamount to abortion, which they opposed on religious grounds. [read post]
12 Sep 2022, 9:01 pm by Michael C. Dorf
Can an employer now remove coverage for insulin from the health insurance provided employees on the ground that insulin facilitates survival with Type II diabetes, which in turn removes a disincentive to overeating and thus the sin of gluttony? [read post]
25 Jan 2024, 2:51 pm by Kevin LaCroix
[v] Client and Employee Poaching Claims A common claim noticed under private company D&O policies and one that often raises the question of Section 533’s applicability involves an insured’s liability for poaching clients or employees from a competitor. [read post]
6 Mar 2022, 5:46 am by Public Employment Law Press
CSEA's members and former members may obtain health insurance through the New York State Health Insurance Plan (NYSHIP), an optional health-benefit plan covering current and retired state employees and other public employees. [read post]
6 Mar 2022, 5:46 am by Public Employment Law Press
CSEA's members and former members may obtain health insurance through the New York State Health Insurance Plan (NYSHIP), an optional health-benefit plan covering current and retired state employees and other public employees. [read post]
16 Dec 2013, 6:36 am by Marty Lederman
  Moreover, with respect to that one of the two options a RFRA claim is virtually foreclosed by the Court’s unanimous 1982 decision in United States v. [read post]
29 Nov 2013, 10:03 pm by Joey Fishkin
 (Indeed, you are required by law to get it—or perhaps not exactly required, see NFIB v. [read post]
2 Sep 2008, 7:12 pm
P. 33(a), on the grounds that new evidence came to light showing that (1) one of the co-conspirators who testified against them engaged in several acts of misconduct while detained at the city jail in Hammond, Indiana, before trial; and (2) the government withheld the evidence of that misconduct in derogation of Brady v. [read post]
14 Oct 2013, 2:08 pm by Tejinder Singh
On Tuesday, October 15, the Justices will hear argument in Heimeshoff v. [read post]
8 Jan 2021, 12:04 pm by Andrew Hamm
Texas Mutual Insurance Co. 20-748Issues: (1) Whether the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 preempts a state workers’ compensation system that limits the prices an air-ambulance company can charge and collect for its air-transport services; and (2) whether the McCarran-Ferguson Act exempts such a system from ADA preemption. [read post]
7 Apr 2012, 10:38 am by Eugene Volokh
Co., 906 F.2d 1265, 1269 (8th Cir. 1990), that § 1985 applies only to serious violence and not just cancellation of an insurance agent [read post]