Arkansas Contract Statute 
FDA Law Blog
MARCH 24, 2024
By Faraz Siddiqui — As drug manufacturers battle the Health Resources and Services Administration (“HRSA”) in federal courts over the role of 340B contract pharmacies, an Eighth Circuit decision to uphold a 2021 Arkansas law may render those cases inconsequential in that state. Code Ann. § 23-92-604(c)(1), (2) (Act 1103).
FDA Law Blog
MAY 30, 2024
Carole Johnson (consolidated cases), the Court found that the conditions set by Novartis and United Therapeutics on covered entities did not violate the 340B statute, although more restrictive conditions could violate the law. A number of drug companies sued to enjoin enforcement. Novartis and United Therapeutics Corporation sued in the D.C.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
SCOTUSBlog
DECEMBER 13, 2020
Pharmaceutical Care Management Association firmly rejected an attack on state statutes that protect pharmacies from the prescription-reimbursement intermediaries that health-insurance providers use to administer their prescription-drug programs. Rutledge involves an Arkansas statute of that sort, which has three salient provisions.
FDA Law Blog
OCTOBER 6, 2021
By Faraz Siddiqui — Last week, we blogged about a growing list of drug manufacturers that have refused to follow a 2010 guidance issued by the Health Resources and Services Administration (“HRSA”), which permits 340B covered entities to contract with multiple pharmacies to dispense drugs to covered entity patients. Code Ann. § Code Ann.§
JonathanTurley
MAY 25, 2021
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. Martin accepted the contract which called for the payment of a $1,000 honorarium as well as costs of travel and lodging. ” She was then denied the contract.
ClimateChange-ClimateLaw
OCTOBER 20, 2020
1442, or the civil-rights removal statute, 28 U.S.C. The district court rejected eight grounds for removal, but the Fourth Circuit concluded its appellate jurisdiction was limited to determining whether the companies properly removed the case under the federal-officer removal statute. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore , No.
SCOTUSBlog
JANUARY 16, 2025
Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit affirmed , holding that because a federal agency now has the final say over how the private horse-racing authority implements the federal statute, the amended law did not impermissibly delegate authority to a private entity. Another challenge brought in Arkansas failed, and the U.S. 10 conference.)
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
59 
Let's personalize your content