Search for: "Indiana v. Kentucky" Results 81 - 100 of 507
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 Dec 2019, 2:00 am by Kevin Kaufman
Idaho 1/1/19 FAGI FTI Illinois Rolling FTI FTI Indiana 1/1/19 FAGI FTI before NOLs and special deds. [read post]
12 Dec 2019, 5:45 am by Kevin Kaufman
Key Findings Following the 2018 South Dakota v. [read post]
27 Nov 2019, 5:45 am by Kevin Kaufman
In light of states’ differing responses to the Wayfair v. [read post]
21 Nov 2019, 6:03 am by Derek T. Muller
of Montana 1.54 $76,666 $49,900 Univ. of Cincinnati-Main 1.55 $76,173 $49,300 Indiana Univ. [read post]
29 Oct 2019, 12:00 pm by John Elwood
Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc., 18-1019, is no longer being relisted and it appears the court is holding it for the Louisiana admitting-privileges case, June Medical Services LLC v. [read post]
17 Oct 2019, 11:09 am by John Elwood
Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc., 18-1019Issue: Whether a state, consistent with the 14th Amendment, may require an ultrasound as part of informed consent at least 18 hours before an abortion. [read post]
15 Oct 2019, 11:46 am by Amy Howe
Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, again at their conference on Friday, October 18. [read post]
9 Oct 2019, 12:38 pm by John Elwood
Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc., 18-1019, involving whether a state may constitutionally require an ultrasound as part of informed consent at least 18 hours before an abortion, was relisted three times last spring and is back to clock its fourth relist. [read post]
6 Aug 2019, 5:45 am by Kevin Kaufman
Note: The author thanks Brittany Moore for contributing to statutory research for this piece. [read post]
24 Jul 2019, 11:13 am by Helen Alvare
Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky to assert that its decision used the rational-basis standard of review as pled by Planned Parenthood, and did not “implicate our cases applying the undue burden test [Casey] to abortion regulations. [read post]
11 Jul 2019, 8:00 am by Kevin Kaufman
Supreme Court’s decision in South Dakota v. [read post]