Search for: "Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. United States" Results 161 - 180 of 332
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Nov 2007, 7:21 am
In fact, 65% of the people UCP affiliates serve have a disability other than cerebral palsy. [read post]
12 Jan 2017, 12:04 pm by Edith Roberts
He served as Missouri state director for Sen. [read post]
2 Nov 2021, 3:02 pm by Josh Blackman
Women's Health Ctr., Inc., 512 U.S. 753, 785 (1994) (Scalia, J., dissenting). [read post]
28 May 2006, 5:00 pm
There also is the United States Coast Guard, which is controlled by the Department of Homeland Security. [read post]
12 Nov 2015, 11:30 am by John Elwood
United States, 15-5238, out of the way. [read post]
14 May 2023, 6:56 pm
These serve as the basis for assessing FDI  risk guiding decisions about the conduct of economic activity. [read post]
19 Apr 2015, 3:55 pm by Arizona Employment Law Letter
Here are some recent developments on the sexual orientation front: In June 2013, in United States v. [read post]
25 Jun 2023, 10:54 am by Eugene Volokh
A cab driver who is required to serve all passengers has no First Amendment right to refuse to take people who are visibly carrying Israeli merchandise. [read post]
3 Nov 2007, 7:46 am
In fact, 65% of the people UCP affiliates serve have a disability other than cerebral palsy. [read post]
16 Jan 2019, 8:06 am by John Elwood
Regents of the University of California, 18-587, Trump v. [read post]
6 Nov 2015, 8:57 am by John Elwood
Department of Health and Human Services, 14-1453, East Texas Baptist University v. [read post]
5 Oct 2021, 8:21 am
Professor of Law & Director of Clinical Legal Education, UC Davis School of Law--Robert Cover as Critical Race Theorist   Mark Graber, University System of Maryland Regents Professor, University of Maryland Carey School of Law & Sandford V. [read post]
6 Sep 2010, 12:42 am by Marie Louise
United States (271 Patent Blog) (Patently-O) (Gray on Claims) (IPBiz) (IPBiz) (PatLit) CAFC: Another means-plus-function opinion: General Protecht Group, Inc. v. [read post]