Search for: "Minor Children v. Arkansas Department of Human Services"
Results 1 - 11
of 11
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Jun 2023, 8:41 am
The University of Chicago law school website shows 62 "full time reaching faculty" v. 127 "Lecturers in Law" (another—and, to some ears, a more dignified—term for adjuncts). [read post]
7 Jun 2022, 5:00 pm
Even then, you can only sue the police or department of social services for certain things. [read post]
1 Apr 2021, 9:03 pm
Department of State will deviate from the human rights policy promoted by former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. [read post]
19 Mar 2021, 11:26 am
Section 1115 of the Social Security Act (“Section 1115”) gives the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) the authority to waive certain statutory requirements for demonstration projects that are likely to promote the objectives of the Medicaid program. [read post]
19 Mar 2019, 7:24 am
Since Brookings published the report in May 2016, Alabama, Arkansas, California, Texas, and Utah have all criminalized sextortion. [read post]
22 Jan 2018, 9:17 am
V. [read post]
19 Dec 2011, 9:25 am
Florida, et al. — federal Anti-Injunction Act as a bar to constitutional challenges to individual insurance mandate in Affordable Care Act Tue., March 27: 11-398 — Health & Human Services Department v. [read post]
24 Sep 2011, 3:58 am
Sebelius Court: U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals Docket: 09-2281 September 19, 2011 Judge: Seymour Areas of Law: Contracts, Government & Administrative Law, Native American Law This was the second appeal in litigation arising from the Secretary of Health and Human Services' (HHS) decision not to enter into a self-determination contract with the Southern Ute Indian Tribe (Tribe). [read post]
19 Apr 2010, 7:56 am
Arkansas Department of Human Services, No. 60CV-08-14284, holding unconstitutional Initiated Act I of 2008, an Arkansas measure approved by voters that was mainly aimed at blocking adoptions of children by gay people. [read post]
25 Feb 2008, 10:08 am
See Swann v. [read post]
27 Aug 2007, 3:00 am
Fish and Wildlife Service are affirmed over claims that: 1) the Wild Bird Act does not apply to captive-bred birds; 2) the Act is unconstitutionally vague because it does not define the term personal pet; and 3) the jury instruction given by the trial court was incorrect. [read post]
