Sentences with phrase «providers provided to the court»

But during the hearing, Judge John W. deGravelles pointed out that a list of Medicaid providers provided to the court included dentists and ophthalmologists, saying it struck him as «extremely odd» that Planned Parenthood patients could go there for family planning services.

Not exact matches

To the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, you agree to indemnify, defend and hold harmless Daily Harvest, and our respective past, present and future employees, officers, directors, contractors, consultants, equityholders, suppliers, vendors, service providers, parent companies, subsidiaries, affiliates, agents, representatives, predecessors, successors and assigns (individually and collectively, the «Daily Harvest Parties»), from and against all actual or alleged Daily Harvest Party or third party claims, damages, awards, judgments, losses, liabilities, obligations, penalties, interest, fees, expenses (including, without limitation, attorneys» fees and expenses) and costs (including, without limitation, court costs, costs of settlement and costs of pursuing indemnification and insurance), of every kind and nature whatsoever, whether known or unknown, foreseen or unforeseen, matured or unmatured, or suspected or unsuspected, in law or equity, whether in tort, contract or otherwise (collectively, «Claims»), including, but not limited to, damages to property or personal injury, that are caused by, arise out of or are related to (a) your use or misuse of the Sites, Content or Products, (b) any User Content you create, post, share or store on or through the Sites or our pages or feeds on third party social media platforms, (c) any Feedback you provide, (d) your violation of these Terms, (e) your violation of the rights of another, and (f) any third party's use or misuse of the Sites or Products provided to yoTo the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, you agree to indemnify, defend and hold harmless Daily Harvest, and our respective past, present and future employees, officers, directors, contractors, consultants, equityholders, suppliers, vendors, service providers, parent companies, subsidiaries, affiliates, agents, representatives, predecessors, successors and assigns (individually and collectively, the «Daily Harvest Parties»), from and against all actual or alleged Daily Harvest Party or third party claims, damages, awards, judgments, losses, liabilities, obligations, penalties, interest, fees, expenses (including, without limitation, attorneys» fees and expenses) and costs (including, without limitation, court costs, costs of settlement and costs of pursuing indemnification and insurance), of every kind and nature whatsoever, whether known or unknown, foreseen or unforeseen, matured or unmatured, or suspected or unsuspected, in law or equity, whether in tort, contract or otherwise (collectively, «Claims»), including, but not limited to, damages to property or personal injury, that are caused by, arise out of or are related to (a) your use or misuse of the Sites, Content or Products, (b) any User Content you create, post, share or store on or through the Sites or our pages or feeds on third party social media platforms, (c) any Feedback you provide, (d) your violation of these Terms, (e) your violation of the rights of another, and (f) any third party's use or misuse of the Sites or Products provided to yoto indemnify, defend and hold harmless Daily Harvest, and our respective past, present and future employees, officers, directors, contractors, consultants, equityholders, suppliers, vendors, service providers, parent companies, subsidiaries, affiliates, agents, representatives, predecessors, successors and assigns (individually and collectively, the «Daily Harvest Parties»), from and against all actual or alleged Daily Harvest Party or third party claims, damages, awards, judgments, losses, liabilities, obligations, penalties, interest, fees, expenses (including, without limitation, attorneys» fees and expenses) and costs (including, without limitation, court costs, costs of settlement and costs of pursuing indemnification and insurance), of every kind and nature whatsoever, whether known or unknown, foreseen or unforeseen, matured or unmatured, or suspected or unsuspected, in law or equity, whether in tort, contract or otherwise (collectively, «Claims»), including, but not limited to, damages to property or personal injury, that are caused by, arise out of or are related to (a) your use or misuse of the Sites, Content or Products, (b) any User Content you create, post, share or store on or through the Sites or our pages or feeds on third party social media platforms, (c) any Feedback you provide, (d) your violation of these Terms, (e) your violation of the rights of another, and (f) any third party's use or misuse of the Sites or Products provided to yoto, damages to property or personal injury, that are caused by, arise out of or are related to (a) your use or misuse of the Sites, Content or Products, (b) any User Content you create, post, share or store on or through the Sites or our pages or feeds on third party social media platforms, (c) any Feedback you provide, (d) your violation of these Terms, (e) your violation of the rights of another, and (f) any third party's use or misuse of the Sites or Products provided to yoto property or personal injury, that are caused by, arise out of or are related to (a) your use or misuse of the Sites, Content or Products, (b) any User Content you create, post, share or store on or through the Sites or our pages or feeds on third party social media platforms, (c) any Feedback you provide, (d) your violation of these Terms, (e) your violation of the rights of another, and (f) any third party's use or misuse of the Sites or Products provided to yoto (a) your use or misuse of the Sites, Content or Products, (b) any User Content you create, post, share or store on or through the Sites or our pages or feeds on third party social media platforms, (c) any Feedback you provide, (d) your violation of these Terms, (e) your violation of the rights of another, and (f) any third party's use or misuse of the Sites or Products provided to yoto you.

In consideration of being permitted to use the Website, You agree to indemnify and hold harmless Non-GMO Project, and / or its officers, directors, employees, partners, contractors, affiliates, subsidiaries, agents, attorneys, web developers, technical support / maintenance providers, distributors, advertisers, licensors, sublicensees, and / or assigns, from any claim or demand, including reasonable attorneys» fees, expert witness fees, and court costs, made by any third party due to or arising out of Content You Post, Your use of the Website, including without limitation, Your participation in any interactive aspect of the Website, Your use of any information provided on or in connection with or obtained from the Website, Your violation of this Agreement, Your breach of any of the representations and warranties contained herein, or Your violation of any rights of another.

Consultation on social and behavioral issues is provided to hospitals, schools, churches, businesses, nursing and boarding homes, law enforcement, courts, and their healthcare providers.

(a) an electronic or physical signature of the person authorized to act on your behalf; (b) a description of the material that has been removed or to which access has been disabled and where the material was located online before it was removed or access to it was disabled; (c) a written statement by you that under penalty of perjury, that you have a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled; and (d) your address, telephone number, and email address; and (e) a statement that you consent to the jurisdiction of federal district court for the judicial district in which the address is located, or if your address is outside of the United States, for any judicial district in which the service provider may be found, and that you will accept service of process from the person who provided notification under DMCA 512 subsection (c)(1)(c) or an agent of such person.

The Kavi Gupta will not disclose or share any personal information you provide to the Kavi Gupta with any other party without your permission, except for the following: (a) if requested to do so in accordance with a court order, subpoena, or similar legal order and (b) name and address information provided through our box - office sales provider may be exchanged by the Kavi Gupta with other cultural institutions but we do not exchange email addresses or phone numbers.

In order to support this finding, the Court suggests that the legislative measures provided for in Article 15 (1) apply to providers of electronic communications services [74] and extend to measures requiring data retention [75] and access to retained data by national authorities [76].

In so doing, the court recognized that «citizens have a reasonable expectation of privacy protected by Article I... of the New Jersey Constitution, in the subscriber information they provide to Internet service providers — just as New Jersey citizens have a privacy interest in their bank records stored by banks and telephone billing records kept by phone companies.»

Instead, if you want to send a PDF or other file to recipients of your email alert or newsletter (e.g., a copy of a court decision), upload the PDF or other file to your website or a «document library» provided by your email services provider, and then insert a URL linking to the file inside the email that recipients can click to access the file.

Whereas in relation to other fields of copyright law the CJEU «identifies» ever more criteria (judgment in GS Media, also cases Rafael Hoteles, SCF, Svensson and BestWater), in Mc Fadden the Court underlined that the provisions of the Directive, by providing limited liability to ISS providers under certain conditions, create a balance between the interests involved.

Firstly, as alluded to by Colin, the courts may have provided the Free access provider a licence which does not authorize the redistribution their decisions.

The court reviewed the legislation and came to the conclusion that, so long as a service provider is sustaining some level of economic loss, they are entitled to be compensated for the full amount of services that they are providing.

Today the women's health care providers who jointly filed suit last month on behalf of their patients have filed an emergency application with the U.S. Supreme Court to reinstate an injunction granted by U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel on October 28 blocking a Texas provision requiring doctors who provide abortions to obtain admitting privileges at a local hospital — a requirement that leading medical associations oppose and only results in women losing access to safe medical care.

The court - integrated online court programme is important in itself but also likely to provide a major stimulus to online advice because providers, both commercial and not for profit, will need to focus on introducing users to the online environment.

Part V of the guidelines facilitates adoption of the recommendations in Part IV by providing tools to help courts make the best decisions and secure the right resources, especially if a new platform (software) or solution provider is deemed necessary to power the court web site.

One court has limited Section 230 immunity to situations in which the originator «furnished it to the provider or user under circumstances in which a reasonable person... would conclude that the information was provided for publication on the Internet....»

In a decision issued today, the Washington Court of Appeals has embraced the broad consensus among state and federal courts holding that plaintiffs who want courts to force service providers to provide identifying information about anonymous online speakers must both provide notice to the speakers and present evidence of wrongdoing....

The court also noted that the medical providers at hospital emergency departments were obligated to provide care to patients regardless of their ability to pay.

Outcome In N v ACCG [2017] UKSC 22, the Supreme Court has now pronounced definitively upon what the Court of Protection should do where is a dispute between the providers or funders of health or social services for a person lacking the capacity to make the decision for himself as to what services should be provided to him either between the person's family or, by analogy, by those acting on behalf of the person.

Writing for the court, Chief Justice Stuart Rabner said: «We now hold that citizens have a reasonable expectation of privacy protected by Article I... of the New Jersey Constitution, in the subscriber information they provide to Internet service providers — just as New Jersey citizens have a privacy interest in their bank records stored by banks and telephone billing records kept by phone companies.»

As one of the leading providers of litigation services, we are the only litigation support company that provides court reporting, record retrieval, and litigation, eDiscovery and trial services to major corporations and law firms nationwide.

Finally, he asserts that the late disclosure of these bills — on the financial declaration Wife provided to the court the day of the final hearing — prevented him from asserting various defenses, including (1) that some of the bills were for expenses incurred by Wife after the date of filing of her divorce action, (2) that the statute of limitations may have expired on some of the expenses, and (3) that the medical providers may have been willing to compromise on some of the expenses for less than their face value.

The court agreed with Ifrah, stating that PokerStars served as a third part service provider — only providing the forum for others to play and does not have stake decided in how the game plays out.

Predominantly, the cases are dropped by the plaintiff after the court has collected contract information from an internet service provider (ISP) and provided it to the plaintiff.

Meanwhile, non-law competitors are offering the speed and analytical approach that traditional providers aren't, such as Xakia Technologies, which helps in - house lawyers understand their work to improve performance and Litimetrics, which provides insights from the analysis of court records that helps litigants make better decisions about their case.

The party serving the subpoena on the health care provider must provide written certification to the provider that: (1) This procedure has been followed, (2) twenty days have passed from the date of service, and (3) no challenge has been made to the disclosure or the court has ordered disclosure after resolution of a legal court challenge.

Required by law includes, but is not limited to, court orders and court - ordered warrants; subpoenas or summons issued by a court, grand jury, a governmental or tribal inspector general, or an administrative body authorized to require the production of information; a civil or an authorized investigative demand; Medicare conditions of participation with respect to health care providers participating in the program; and statutes or regulations that require the production of information, including statutes or regulations that require such information if payment is sought under a government program providing public benefits.

The basis on which funding for the function is provided will be relevant; the closer the facts are to the contractual provider and purchaser model which existed in this case, the less likely it is that the court will regard the function as publicly funded.

«Integration with other court service providers and general awareness raising campaigns will help to ensure that proper referrals are made, and that SRLs can be provided with the option of accessing information resources that may prove to be very useful to them.

Such an advisory institute would be paid for by enabling CanLII, the provider of court decisions and statutory materials, to provide at cost, legal opinions for every lawyer and judge in Canada.

Once you pass the test, your traffic school provider will usually give you a completion certificate or provide your completion information to the court or the TN DOS.

Taggart's Online Driver Improvement Course is provided in response to the decision of many courts in the State of Georgia, under pre-trial diversion practices, to accept a completion certificate from an online provider for ticket dismissal, or downgrading of a traffic ticket.

Safe2Drive is one of the few providers approved by the TDLR to offer a 6 - hour online Texas defensive driving course that will dismiss a ticket from your record, provided that the court allows that option for you.

Once you pass the test, your course provider will usually electronically submit your completion certificate to the court or CT DMV and provide you with a hard copy.

Using any questionable items that have come up on a database search and using address history as a basis of narrowing the local courts down, a quality provider will go direct to the local court system to provide you with accurate records.

The court is guided by the best interests of the child, and considers: the relationship of the child with each parent and the ability and disposition of each parent to provide the child with love, affection and guidance, the ability and disposition of each parent to assure that the child receives adequate food, clothing, medical care, other material needs and a safe environment, the ability and disposition of each parent to meet the child's present and future developmental needs, the quality of the child's adjustment to the child's present housing, school and community and the potential effect of any change, the ability and disposition of each parent to foster a positive relationship and frequent and continuing contact with the other parent, including physical contact, except where contact will result in harm to the child or to a parent, the quality of the child's relationship with the primary care provider, if appropriate given the child's age and development, the relationship of the child with any other person who may significantly affect the child, the ability and disposition of the parents to communicate, cooperate with each other and make joint decisions concerning the children where parental rights and responsibilities are to be shared or divided, and any evidence of abuse.

Does the order provide that the Children's Contact Service may terminate its services (many Children's Contact Service providers say parents insist their court orders compel the Service to provide supervised contact notwithstanding the Service believes it is inappropriate for supervised visits to continue)?

«As a trusted provider of information, we're pleased that the State Supreme Court unanimously ruled that we can continue to provide accurate information and counseling to young women facing crisis pregnancies,» said Peter Brownlie, president and CEO of PPKM.

2) Obtain Child Abuse & Maltreatment History Reports: You will be asked to provide information (names, dates of birth, addresses) for you and any adult household members to the home study provider or court so the provider or court may obtain child abuse and maltreatment history reports; if any adult person in the household lived outside of the United States, that individual will be required to obtain child abuse and maltreatment history reports from that country (ies) for the home study provider (if the country has a child abuse registry)(if the country does not have a registry, the applicant must provide proof that the country does not have a child abuse registry to the home study provider).

Although the prospective adoptive family is responsible to locate and petition the Family Court for Guardianship of a child on their own, your Primary Provider will be able to assist you by providing known orphanages and / or general guidance and information regarding such things as definitions of a legal orphan or information regarding the Pakistan placement process that complies with the United States laws and expectations.

The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, sitting en banc, upheld an earlier determination that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau had incorrectly rejected a long - standing RESPA interpretation that payments made to settlement service providers are permissible so long as those payments are for goods or services actually provided and are for fair market value.

(Under Freeman vs. Quicken Loans, the court ruled that the prohibition in RESPA of unearned fees referred to fees that are split with another service provider for which no service is provided — a kickback.