Search for: "Perez v. Department of Health"
Results 21 - 40
of 124
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Apr 2024, 8:23 am
information–Children’s Health Defense v. [read post]
20 Nov 2021, 10:33 am
information–Children’s Health Defense v. [read post]
9 Mar 2017, 4:43 am
In Perez v. [read post]
5 May 2014, 6:38 am
By Lisa Milam-Perez, J.D. [read post]
23 Oct 2013, 7:12 am
Perez, and Jacob J. [read post]
16 Oct 2013, 6:11 am
See Cumbie v. [read post]
13 Mar 2023, 12:49 pm
information–Children’s Health Defense v. [read post]
18 Nov 2023, 9:21 am
information–Children’s Health Defense v. [read post]
15 Jul 2023, 6:00 am
Elenis NG 600/1 57 6/30/23 22-535 Department of Education v. [read post]
15 Jul 2023, 6:00 am
Elenis NG 600/1 57 6/30/23 22-535 Department of Education v. [read post]
2 Mar 2015, 1:42 pm
Supreme Court ruling in United States v. [read post]
24 Sep 2013, 8:35 am
By Lisa Milam-Perez, J.D. [read post]
8 May 2009, 10:02 am
Perez (Perez), his family physician. [read post]
14 Jul 2012, 3:00 am
However, the Court takes pains to note that it is not, as argued by petitioner, only or primarily the functional relationship between respondents and the State actors, including the Legislature, the State-created Commission on hospital closings, and the State Department of Health, that is dispositive here. [read post]
30 Apr 2012, 8:03 am
Howards Department of Health and Human Services v. [read post]
26 Mar 2012, 3:55 pm
(In this connection recall Perez v. [read post]
19 Sep 2008, 12:05 pm
However, the Court takes pains to note that it is not, as argued by petitioner, only or primarily the functional relationship between respondents and the State actors, including the Legislature, the State-created Commission on hospital closings, and the State Department of Health, that is dispositive here. [read post]
10 Feb 2014, 4:16 pm
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, the In the Matter of: Perez v. [read post]
30 Jan 2015, 7:09 am
By Lisa Milam-Perez, J.D. [read post]
3 Oct 2022, 4:56 pm
Ohio Adjutant General’s Department v. [read post]