Advanced Search Results
Bates Vs. State Bar of Arizona
US Supreme Court
Jun-27-1977
MRTP
individual and societal interests in assuring informed and reliable decisionmaking, is entitled to some First Amendment protection, Virginia Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Consumer Council, 425 U. S. 748 , and the justifications advanced by appellee are inadequate … Rule 2-101(b), incorporated in Rule 29(a) of the Supreme Court of Arizona, 17A Ariz.Rev.Stat., p. 26 (Supp. 1976). The disciplinary rule provides in part: "(B) … violated the rule, having rejected appellants' claims that the rule violated §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act because of its tendency to limit competition, and that it infringed appellants' First Amendment rights. Held: 1. The … such information, and more, Page 433 U. S. 367 in the classified section of the telephone directory. DR 2-102(A)(6) (1976). [ Footnote 18 ] We
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskKentucky Assn. of Health Plans, Inc. Vs. Miller
US Supreme Court
Apr-02-2003
MRTP
210 ("The only issue before us is whether the Court of Appeals was correct in concluding that these Pharmacy Agreements are not the 'business of insurance' within the meaning of § 2(b) of the McCarran-Ferguson Act" (emphasis … upon such business, unless such Act specifically relates to the business of insurance: Provided, That after June 30, 1948, the Act of July 2, 1890, as amended, known as the Sherman Act, and the Act of October … education (CLE) each year. This statute "regulates" the practice of law- 2 Section 2 of the McCarran- Ferguson Act provides: "(a) The business of insurance, … employer welfare arrangement[s] not exempt from state regulation by ERISA." § 304. 17A-005(23). We do not think § 304. 17A-270's application to self-insured non-ERISA plans
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskAI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›