19 Cited authorities

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
573 U.S. 682 (2014) Cited 764 times 50 Legal Analyses
Holding that regulation at issue created a "substantial burden" under RFRA because the governmental action threatened penalties against religiously adherent employers who refused to provide contraceptive care as part of their heath provision plans, and therefore involved "coercion"
Schmidt v. Lessard
414 U.S. 473 (1974) Cited 453 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Constitution compelled the state to establish the unsuitability of numerous alternatives to involuntary full-time hospitalization before commitment could be ordered, including "voluntary or court-ordered out-patient treatment, day treatment in a hospital, night treatment in a hospital, placement in the custody of a friend or relative, placement in a nursing home, referral to a community mental health clinic, and home health aide services"
PBM Products, LLC v. Mead Johnson & Co.
639 F.3d 111 (4th Cir. 2011) Cited 264 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding irreparable harm element satisfied "primarily on the fact that [defendant's] advertising misled customers."
Chamber of Commerce v. E. P. A.
642 F.3d 192 (D.C. Cir. 2011) Cited 119 times
Concluding that “[n]either declaration, however, suffices to demonstrate the ‘substantial probability’ of injury required to establish the petitioners' standing.”
In re Energy Cooperative, Inc.
886 F.2d 921 (7th Cir. 1989) Cited 109 times
In Energy Co-op, the Seventh Circuit held that "[c]entral to the bankruptcy judge's determination [of whether a settlement is in the best interests of the estate] is a comparison of settlement's terms with the litigation's probable costs and probable benefits.
Mich. Catholic Conference & Catholic Family Servs. v. Burwell
755 F.3d 372 (6th Cir. 2014) Cited 50 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding no factual basis to determine the government will need to make any determination as to which entities are exempt; therefore no excessive entanglement has been shown
Priests for Life v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs.
772 F.3d 229 (D.C. Cir. 2014) Cited 40 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that proposed alternatives "would not serve the government's compelling interest with anywhere near the efficacy of the challenged accommodation and would instead deter women from accessing contraception"
Chathas v. Local 134 Ibew
233 F.3d 508 (7th Cir. 2000) Cited 58 times 1 Legal Analyses
Stating that "[j]udgments are appealable; opinions are not"
Geneva Coll. v. Sec'y U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs.
778 F.3d 422 (3d Cir. 2015) Cited 32 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding plaintiffs failed to establish that compliance with religious employer "accommodation" provision of ACA's contraceptive mandate imposed substantial burden on their free exercise of religion
Gaddy v. Abex Corp.
884 F.2d 312 (7th Cir. 1989) Cited 64 times
Holding that an injunction against retaliation was improper because there never was any allegation of retaliation by the defendants
Rule 65 - Injunctions and Restraining Orders
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 Cited 23,033 times 88 Legal Analyses
Recognizing court's ability to enter emergency order with less than full adversary hearing and even, in appropriate circumstances, without notice
Section 2000bb - Congressional findings and declaration of purposes
42 U.S.C. § 2000bb Cited 1,557 times 18 Legal Analyses
Finding that in Smith, "the Supreme Court virtually eliminated the requirement that the government justify burdens on religious exercise imposed by laws neutral toward religion"
Section 300gg-13 - Coverage of preventive health services
42 U.S.C. § 300gg-13 Cited 172 times 10 Legal Analyses
Requiring "evidence-informed preventive care and screenings"

Triune Health Group, Inc. et al v. United States Department of Health & Human Services et al

19 Cited authorities

Holding that regulation at issue created a "substantial burden" under RFRA because the governmental action threatened penalties against religiously adherent employers who refused to provide contraceptive care as part of their heath provision plans, and therefore involved "coercion"

Holding irreparable harm element satisfied "primarily on the fact that [defendant's] advertising misled customers."

Concluding that “[n]either declaration, however, suffices to demonstrate the ‘substantial probability’ of injury required to establish the petitioners' standing.”

In Energy Co-op, the Seventh Circuit held that "[c]entral to the bankruptcy judge's determination [of whether a settlement is in the best interests of the estate] is a comparison of settlement's terms with the litigation's probable costs and probable benefits.

Finding no factual basis to determine the government will need to make any determination as to which entities are exempt; therefore no excessive entanglement has been shown

Holding that proposed alternatives "would not serve the government's compelling interest with anywhere near the efficacy of the challenged accommodation and would instead deter women from accessing contraception"

Stating that "[j]udgments are appealable; opinions are not"

Holding plaintiffs failed to establish that compliance with religious employer "accommodation" provision of ACA's contraceptive mandate imposed substantial burden on their free exercise of religion

Holding that an injunction against retaliation was improper because there never was any allegation of retaliation by the defendants

Recognizing court's ability to enter emergency order with less than full adversary hearing and even, in appropriate circumstances, without notice

Finding that in Smith, "the Supreme Court virtually eliminated the requirement that the government justify burdens on religious exercise imposed by laws neutral toward religion"

Requiring "evidence-informed preventive care and screenings"