Search for: "James v. Federal Insurance Co."
Results 121 - 140
of 258
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Apr 2013, 6:54 am
§ 1395y(b)(2), establishes a cause of action for private insurers operating Medicare Advantage plans to sue tortfeasors for double damages. [read post]
18 Mar 2013, 3:00 am
(Brady v. [read post]
21 Jan 2013, 12:02 pm
Co., Civ. [read post]
18 Jan 2013, 9:34 am
James River Ins. [read post]
17 Jan 2013, 1:43 pm
Harbor Insurance Co., 698 F. [read post]
2 Jan 2013, 3:17 pm
All the attorneys at the firm are admitted to the federal courts in Florida. [read post]
4 Nov 2012, 10:31 pm
Contraceptives: Finally, the District Court in Eastern Michigan enjoined application of the HHS contraceptives rule to several individuals in Legatus, Weingartz, and Weingartz Supply Co. v. [read post]
12 Sep 2012, 1:23 am
In an August 27, 2012 post (here), I discussed Central District of California Judge James Selna’s August 21, 2012 decision in Petersen v. [read post]
4 Sep 2012, 12:14 pm
As Lyle Denniston reported for this blog on Friday, the Court granted cert. in The Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. [read post]
21 Aug 2012, 9:17 pm
Co., 2004 U.S. [read post]
7 Aug 2012, 3:15 pm
BRANCH BANKING & TRUST CO. of VIRGINIA, Plaintiff, v. [read post]
2 Aug 2012, 9:19 am
” And even as far back as Gibbons v. [read post]
24 Jul 2012, 1:24 pm
Ltd v. [read post]
23 Jul 2012, 8:37 am
Co. v. [read post]
17 Jul 2012, 2:58 am
By V. [read post]
30 Jun 2012, 3:37 pm
JAMES ROBERTS, a/k/a JAMES LEWIS ROBERTS, Appellant, v. [read post]
28 Jun 2012, 4:30 am
Co. of Hartford v Cook, 7 NY3d 131, commented that the Court of Appeals recently said that "when [an insurance] policy represents it will provide the insured with a defense, we have said that it actually constitutes litigation insurance' in addition to liability coverage". [read post]
23 May 2012, 11:17 am
FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY [read post]
3 May 2012, 8:01 am
U.S. v. [read post]
1 May 2012, 8:46 pm
Knight & Co., the Court struck down a federal law forbidding any merger of manufacturing companies that resulted in a monopoly, on the grounds that corporate consolidations were not commerce because they were not activities that directly involved the shipment of goods. [read post]