Search for: "Metropolitan Life v. Massachusetts" Results 1 - 20 of 39
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Apr 2009, 9:54 am
Metropolitan Life - the court imposes, and bases its decision in favor (this time) of the participant/claimant on, certain limitations on that principle, finding that: While MetLife is not required to give deference to treating physicians, see e.g., Vlass v. [read post]
6 Apr 2012, 5:11 am by Administrator
Supreme Court’s 1985 decision in Metropolitan Life Ins. [read post]
16 Sep 2009, 1:47 pm
Nine Principles of Baseball and Life Philosophy of Baseball: How to Play the Game of Life. [read post]
20 Jun 2012, 10:02 pm by Administrator
The LTV Corp., 496 U.S. 633 (1990) (Monday); June 19, 2008 – Metropolitan Life Ins. [read post]
18 Jan 2010, 9:24 pm
Co. of Am., 94 NY2d 330 ["out-of-pocket premium payments [for life insurance policies] would vanish within a stated period of time"]; Monter v Massachusetts Mut. [read post]
10 Feb 2011, 10:12 am
In addition, if you are covered by group health insurance at work, and your employer pays premiums to an insurance company for the coverage, the Civil Union Act will also apply because the State law is not preempted as applied to such group health insurance under Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. [read post]
8 Nov 2020, 4:06 pm by INFORRM
The National law Review had a piece “Australian Privacy Act Under Review” Canada In the case of Lethbridge and District Pro-Life Association v Lethbridge (City), 2020 ABQB 654 M David Gates J found that the City’s decision to ban a number of anti-abortion advertisements was unreasonable. [read post]
24 Feb 2014, 7:36 pm by Mary Pat Dwyer
Gardner 13-379Issue: Whether New York prevailing wage rates are minimum labor standards under Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. [read post]
15 Apr 2011, 6:02 am by Bexis
  The court’s eagle eyes spied a Tennessee appellate court decision that rejected the argument that a person’s life was a “thing of value” under the Tennessee statute:[T]he General Assembly intended for the Consumer Protection Act to be used by a person claiming damages for an ascertainable loss of money or property due to an unfair or deceptive act or practice and not in a wrongful death action.2011 WL 1259650, at *3 (quoting Kirksey v. [read post]