This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
In 2010, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) authorized covered entities to contract with an unlimited number of retail pharmacies to fill prescriptions for their patients. There, the Court held that the Arkansas law was not preempted by the 340B statute or the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
This week, a court in Georgia became the latest to declare such laws unconstitutional. The case was brought by journalist Abby Martin who was denied a contract as a keynote speaker at Georgia Southern University due to her support of the BDS movement. ” She was then denied the contract. In NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co.
The court distinguished this case from other cases in which consideration of emissions was required, indicating that in those cases “the significance of emissions was often beyond doubt.” Court Denied Injunction in Challenge to Highway Project in Arkansas. The Supreme Court said the PSC lacked authority to rewrite these terms.
The states sought Supreme Court review , but it was denied. Another challenge brought in Arkansas failed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit affirmed that ruling. And the 6th Circuit concluded that the annual fees did not represent impermissible commandeering. Judicial factfinding for restitution Under Apprendi v.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 99,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content