Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014), is a landmark decision [1] [2] in United States corporate law by the United States Supreme Court allowing privately held for-profit corporations to be exempt from a regulation that its owners religiously object to, if there is a less restrictive means of furthering the law's interest, according to the provisions of the Religious Freedom ...
Texaco, Inc. v. Dagher: 547 U.S. 1 (2006) joint venture was not a price-fixing scheme under antitrust law Scheidler v. National Organization for Women: 547 U.S. 9 (2006) physical violence unrelated to robbery or extortion falls outside the scope of the Hobbs Act: Illinois Tool Works, Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc. 547 U.S. 28 (2006)
Following the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby decision, many states have proposed expanding state RFRA laws to include for-profit corporations, [16] [17] including in Arizona where SB 1062 passed by in Arizona but vetoed by Jan Brewer in 2014.
One example Ranji gave of people fighting against access to emergency contraception was the 2014 U.S. Supreme Court Case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, where the majority of the court held the craft ...
Duncan argued two cases before the Supreme Court of the United States, and has acted as lead counsel in numerous other cases in that Court, including Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 2751 (2014), in which he successfully led litigation challenging the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive mandate on behalf of Hobby Lobby stores. [1]
The last major contraception case to go before the Supreme Court was 2014’s Burwell v.Hobby Lobby Stores, in which the Christian owners of the craft empire Hobby Lobby sued the Obama ...
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
Hobby Lobby Stores v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d 1114 (10th Cir. 2013): The court found for-profit corporations Hobby Lobby and Mardel Christian Bookstores could assert religious freedom as "persons" under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. [9] Judge Tymkovich wrote for the five-judge en banc majority, over a three-judge dissent. [10]