Search for: "Health & Welfare v. Doe"
Results 21 - 40
of 1,425
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 May 2007, 4:33 am
" In Doe v. [read post]
Justices add three new cases, including challenge to animal-welfare law and Warhol copyright dispute
28 Mar 2022, 10:49 am
In Cruz v. [read post]
11 Jan 2022, 5:11 am
"] From Animal Legal Defense Fund v. [read post]
26 Nov 2018, 5:17 am
Important Indian Child Welfare Act Case, Brackeen v. [read post]
30 Oct 2020, 7:32 am
Cabinet for Health and Family Services, Com. v. [read post]
14 Jul 2010, 1:29 pm
On Tuesday, July 13, 2010, the Michigan Court of Appeals published its unanimous opinion in Joe Doe v. [read post]
13 Jun 2019, 4:28 pm
News Bulletinhttps://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/news/currentnews.html In the Health & Welfare section, we feature an article about a tribe taking on a management role for a troubled Indian Health Service hospital. [read post]
13 Jun 2019, 4:28 pm
News Bulletinhttps://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/news/currentnews.html In the Health & Welfare section, we feature an article about a tribe taking on a management role for a troubled Indian Health Service hospital. [read post]
13 Aug 2011, 8:34 am
In Sullivan v. [read post]
22 Feb 2011, 8:43 pm
The case is Mead, et al., v. [read post]
9 Mar 2024, 5:01 am
Koe's case is therefore materially indistinguishable from Doe v. [read post]
4 May 2013, 8:03 pm
In a setback to community health and the State of California's attempts to handle its budget issues by cutting back services to those most in need, a recent Court of Appeal decision, Mendocino Community Health Clinic v. [read post]
24 Jan 2012, 11:24 am
See Reed v. [read post]
1 Jul 2021, 2:35 pm
(Indian Child Welfare Act) U.S. [read post]
4 Jan 2016, 11:35 am
Whole Woman’s Health v. [read post]
9 Mar 2010, 12:57 pm
However, the report does find the some progress has been made. [read post]
6 Sep 2017, 11:27 am
Whole Woman’s Health v. [read post]
9 Nov 2022, 3:02 pm
And the Supreme Court’s 1974 decision in Morton v. [read post]
25 May 2015, 1:53 pm
A defendant need not commit an affirmative act directed at a child (see People v Hitchcock, 98 NY2d 586, 591 [2002]; People v Johnson, 95 NY2d 368, 371-372 [2002]) nor cause actual harm to a child (see Johnson, 95 NY2d at 371; see also People v Duenas, 190 Misc 2d 801 [App Term, 2d Dept 2002]) to be guilty of Endangering the Welfare of a Child. [read post]
20 Jan 2011, 3:30 am
Graphic Communications Local 1B Health & Welfare Fund A v. [read post]