Search for: "King v. Burwell"
Results 121 - 140
of 720
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Sep 2016, 9:30 pm
Supreme Court’s King v. [read post]
23 Sep 2016, 7:31 am
Sebelius and King v. [read post]
22 Sep 2016, 2:40 pm
Burwell and Halbig v. [read post]
22 Sep 2016, 1:33 pm
Burwell, the House challenged the legality of subsidies the Obama administration paid to insurers. [read post]
22 Sep 2016, 5:28 am
The 4th Circuit’s decision in King v. [read post]
1 Aug 2016, 9:42 pm
In Perez v. [read post]
28 Jul 2016, 2:30 pm
Employers, insurers and other health plan sponsors or issuers (health plans), health care providers, healthcare clearinghouses (covered entities) and their business associates should reevaluate the adequacy of their practices and procedures for the protection of electronic protected health information (ePHI) on or accessible through laptops or other mobile devices in light of the $2.75 million penalty and other schooling the Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights (OCR) just… [read post]
12 Jul 2016, 1:30 pm
It does not address last year’s King v. [read post]
18 Jun 2016, 6:17 am
In 2014, the much-watched Burwell v. [read post]
16 Jun 2016, 5:57 am
But if the court were interested, this would be an interesting case to expound upon the “major questions” exception to Chevron that the Court identified in last year’s King v. [read post]
14 Jun 2016, 9:59 am
(Think King v. [read post]
8 Jun 2016, 7:37 pm
The case of King v Burwell had reached the US Supreme Court because of the phrase "exchanges established by the state. [read post]
1 Jun 2016, 10:48 am
EPA and King v. [read post]
31 May 2016, 7:58 am
Abstract below: King v. [read post]
12 May 2016, 10:35 am
” King v. [read post]
30 Apr 2016, 2:00 pm
King v. [read post]
24 Apr 2016, 9:30 pm
” Finally, in King v. [read post]
21 Apr 2016, 4:00 am
Symposium, The Impact of King v. [read post]
19 Apr 2016, 8:57 am
” As the Court has said repeatedly, most recently in 2015’s King v. [read post]
14 Apr 2016, 8:41 am
(Three other individual petitioners--Alveda King, Janet Morana and Father Frank Pavone--are directors of Priests for Life.)The government's argument as to insured plans.The government explains in its supplemental brief that the Court's proposal for employers with insured plans basically describes the government's existing accommodation itself, with one exception. [read post]
