19 Cited authorities

  1. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

    573 U.S. 682 (2014)   Cited 752 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 health provision plans, and therefore involved "coercion"
  2. Schmidt v. Lessard

    414 U.S. 473 (1974)   Cited 451 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"
  3. PBM Products, LLC v. Mead Johnson & Co.

    639 F.3d 111 (4th Cir. 2011)   Cited 261 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding irreparable harm element satisfied "primarily on the fact that [defendant's] advertising misled customers."
  4. Chamber of Commerce v. E. P. A.

    642 F.3d 192 (D.C. Cir. 2011)   Cited 116 times
    Concluding that “[n]either declaration, however, suffices to demonstrate the ‘substantial probability’ of injury required to establish the petitioners' standing.”
  5. 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.
  6. 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
  7. 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"
  8. 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"
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. Rule 65 - Injunctions and Restraining Orders

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 65   Cited 22,743 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
  12. Section 2000bb - Congressional findings and declaration of purposes

    42 U.S.C. § 2000bb   Cited 1,546 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"
  13. 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"