Search for: "Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. United States" Results 1 - 20 of 224
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
Recently, the Supreme Court handed down its much-anticipated opinion in Universal Health Services, Inc. v. [read post]
2 Apr 2019, 1:24 pm by getnickadmin
Supreme Court rejected two petitions urging it to clarify the impact of its 2016 decision of Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. [read post]
9 Sep 2015, 2:21 pm by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer
Gotcher is an Investigator with the United States Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) in the Dallas Regional Office. [read post]
21 Jun 2018, 10:57 am by luiza
The case marks another circuit court’s application of the materiality standard announced in Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. [read post]
31 Jan 2017, 8:46 pm by Howard Friedman
Davenport, 637 F.3d 1095 (2010) he wrote a dissent from the denial of an en banc rehearing in a case which held that memorial crosses donated by the Utah Highway Patrol Association and placed on public property to commemorate fallen troopers violate the Establishment Clause.⇾ In United States v. [read post]
10 Feb 2014, 3:35 pm by Schachtman
  In 2004, after several years of lobbying, agents of the litigation industry managed to push a policy statement past the Association’s leadership, to condemn the requirement of evidence-based reasoning in federal courts in the United States. [read post]
29 Jun 2015, 9:40 am by Lyle Denniston
United States, and a companion case, Sandlin v. [read post]
30 Jun 2014, 2:46 pm by Ayesha Khan
 As the Fourth Circuit put it in Liberty University, Inc. v. [read post]
28 Nov 2016, 3:54 am by Edith Roberts
United States, which asks whether the residual clause of the sentencing guidelines is unconstitutionally vague. [read post]
12 Jun 2017, 10:32 am by Francisco Macías
   Lanham [Maryland]:  University Press of America Inc., 2008. [read post]
3 Jan 2011, 9:45 pm by Law Lady
Medicare Fraud: CLINIC OWNERS GET PRISON FOR STEALING MEDICARE FUNDS, United States v. [read post]