Ad
related to: hobby lobby court case summary lookupcourtrec.com has been visited by 100K+ users in the past month
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 ...
As a result of the case, Hobby Lobby agreed to return the artifacts and forfeit $3 million. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement returned 3,800 items seized from Hobby Lobby to Iraq in May 2018. [2] In March 2020, Hobby Lobby president Steve Green agreed to return 11,500 items to Egypt and Iraq. [3] [4]
[20] The Court held that there was a substantial burden, saying, "Because the contraceptive mandate forces them to pay an enormous sum of money—as much as $475 million per year in the case of Hobby Lobby—if they insist on providing insurance coverage in accordance with their religious beliefs, the mandate clearly imposes a substantial ...
Legal counsel for the Supreme Court on Monday responded to an inquiry from Democratic lawmakers by reiterating Justice Samuel Alito’s denial of a report alleging that the outcome of a pending ...
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]
Anyone who recognizes the suspect shown in the surveillance footage is encouraged to contact Detective M. Troglin at 432-284-2012 or Odessa Crime Stoppers at 432-333-TIPS and reference Case #23 ...
Summers, the Supreme Court held that police officers executing a search warrant were allowed to detain people on the premises while they conducted the search. This case limits that to the "immediate vicinity" of the place being searched, so police searching a basement apartment couldn't search a man leaving from near the apartment in a car. FTC v.
Hobby Lobby's battle against Obamacare “This decor is WRONG on SO many levels. There is nothing decorative about raw cotton…A commodity which was gained at the expense of African-American ...