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
By Faraz Siddiqui — In the Spring of 2021, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) threatened six drug companies with billions of dollars in penalties for not providing 340B discounts to covered entities that sell drugs through vast networks of contract pharmacies (more background on earlier posts ). A lot is at stake here.
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.§
The court said the statutory language authorized courts to grant stays and that EPA’s reading of the statute “would have the perverse result of empowering this court to act when the agency denies a stay but not when it chooses to grant one.” NewJersey Appellate Court Affirmed State Authority to Take Easements for Coastal Protection Projects.
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.
City of Englewood, NewJersey , 23-1189 Issues : (1) Whether the City of Englewoods speech-free buffer zones, including zones outside an abortion clinic, violate the First Amendment; and (2) whether the court should overrule Hill v. California , 22 Orig. CVSG: 12/10/2024 (Relisted after the Jan. 17 conference.) Relisted after the Jan.
NewJersey Federal Court Remanded Hoboken’s Climate Case Against Fossil Fuel Companies to State Court. On September 8, 2021, a federal district court in NewJersey granted the City of Hoboken’s motion to remand to state court its climate change lawsuit against oil and gas companies. —in 20-1093, 20-1094 (D.C.
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. In a one-paragraph order, the justices granted the authoritys request.
The magistrate judge concluded that the suit was barred by the statute of limitations. The court further found that the plaintiffs conceded that venue in Boulder County was not proper for San Miguel under this statute. WildEarth Guardians v. Mountain Coal Co. , 1:20-cv-01342 (D. Coverage of the oral argument is available here.
Jacobson’s lawsuit asserted defamation, breach of contract, and promissory estoppel claims. The project includes approximately 116 miles of natural gas pipeline extending from Pennsylvania to NewJersey, multiple lateral connections, a compressor station, and other facilities.
EPA (2025), Barrett dissented in favor of the EPAs authority to impose receiving water limitations under the Clean Water Act, arguing that such limitations were useful when EPA issues general permits to broad categories of dischargers, and pushing back against the majoritys restrictive interpretation of the statute. Luxshare, Ltd.
The judges decision temporarily blocks the Trump administration from carrying out many of the orders punishments, including one directing agencies to turn the firms lawyers away from federal buildings and another aimed at terminating any federal contracts Susman Godfrey holds. This article addresses some of these risks.
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.
52 
Let's personalize your content