Corpus browser
179663 records-
Open
Azar v. Allina Health Services
Azar v. Allina Health Services
Because the Department of Health and Human Services neglected its statutory notice-and-comment obligations when it revealed a new policy that dramatically—and retroactively—reduced Medicare payments to hospitals serving low-income patients, its policy must be vacated.
-
Open
BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman
BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman
Relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) requires extraordinary circumstances, and this standard does not become less demanding when the movant seeks to reopen a case to amend a complaint; a party must first satisfy Rule 60(b) before Rule 15(a)’s liberal amendment s…
-
Open
BMD-001 - Petition to Establish Fact, Time, and Place of Birth
BMD-001
Petition to Establish Fact, Time, and Place of Birth
-
Open
BMD-001A - Declaration in Support of Petition to Establish Fact, Time, and Place of Birth
BMD-001A
Declaration in Support of Petition to Establish Fact, Time, and Place of Birth
-
Open
BMD-002 - Petition to Establish Fact, Time, and Place of Marriage
BMD-002
Petition to Establish Fact, Time, and Place of Marriage
-
Open
BMD-002A - Declaration in Support of Petition to Establish Fact, Time, and Place of Marriage
BMD-002A
Declaration in Support of Petition to Establish Fact, Time, and Place of Marriage
-
Open
BMD-003 - Petition to Establish Fact, Date, and Place of Death
BMD-003
Petition to Establish Fact, Date, and Place of Death
-
Open
BMD-003A - Declaration in Support of Petition to Establish Fact, Date, and Place of Death
BMD-003A
Declaration in Support of Petition to Establish Fact, Date, and Place of Death
-
Open
BNSF R. Co. v. Loos
BNSF R. Co. v. Loos
A railroad’s payment to an employee for working time lost due to an on-the-job injury is taxable “compensation” under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act.
-
Open
BOFE
BOFE
-
Open
BP p.l.c. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore
BP p.l.c. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore
Where defendant energy companies premised 28 U. S. C. §1447(d) removal in part on the federal officer removal statute, §1442, the Fourth Circuit erred in holding that it lacked jurisdiction to consider all grounds for removal rejected by the District Court.
-
Open
BROWSE ALL DECISIONS
BROWSE ALL DECISIONS
-
Open
Babcock v. Kijakazi
Babcock v. Kijakazi
Civil-service pension payments based on employment as a dual-status military technician are not payments based on “service as a member of a uniformed service” under 42 U. S. C. §415(a)(7)(A)(III).
-
Open
Badgerow v. Walters
Badgerow v. Walters
Federal jurisdiction in a petition to compel arbitration under Section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act is determined by “looking through” the petition to the jurisdictional basis of the “underlying substantive controversy,” Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U. S. 49, 62, but that app…
-
Open
Barbering & cosmetology establishments posting notice
Barbering & cosmetology establishments posting notice
-
Open
Barbering & cosmetology establishments posting notice (Cantonese)
Barbering & cosmetology establishments posting notice (Cantonese)
-
Open
Barbering & cosmetology establishments posting notice (Korean)
Barbering & cosmetology establishments posting notice (Korean)
-
Open
Barbering & cosmetology establishments posting notice (Mandarin)
Barbering & cosmetology establishments posting notice (Mandarin)
-
Open
Barbering & cosmetology establishments posting notice (Spanish)
Barbering & cosmetology establishments posting notice (Spanish)
-
Open
Barbering & cosmetology establishments posting notice (Vietnamese)
Barbering & cosmetology establishments posting notice (Vietnamese)
-
Open
Barnes v. Felix
Barnes v. Felix
The Fifth Circuit’s moment-of-threat rule—a framework for evaluating police shootings which requires a court to look only to the circumstances existing at the precise time an officer perceived the threat inducing him to shoot—improperly narrows the Fourth Amendment analysis of p…
-
Open
Barr v. American Assn. of Political Consultants, Inc.
Barr v. American Assn. of Political Consultants, Inc.
The Fourth Circuit’s judgment—that the robocall restriction’s government-debt exception in 47 U. S. C. §227(b)(1)(A)(iii) violates the First Amendment but is severable from the remainder of the statute—is affirmed.
-
Open
Barr v. Lee
Barr v. Lee
The District Court’s order preliminarily enjoining the executions of four federal prisoners is vacated.
-
Open
Barrett v. United States
Barrett v. United States
Congress did not clearly authorize convictions under both 18 U. S. C. §§924(c)(1)(A)(i) and (j) for a single act that violates both provisions—therefore, one act that violates both may spawn only one conviction; the part of the Second Circuit’s judgment that held otherwise is re…
-
Open
Bartenwerfer v. Buckley
Bartenwerfer v. Buckley
Pursuant to §523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code, a debtor like Kate Bartenwerfer who is liable for her partner’s fraud cannot discharge that debt in bankruptcy, regardless of her own culpability.