Works matching National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius
1
- Boston University Law Review, 2013, v. 93, n. 6, p. 2131
- Article
2
- Creighton Law Review, 2013, v. 46, n. 4, p. 721
- Article
4
- UMKC Law Review, 2012, v. 81, n. 2, p. 313
- Article
5
- Tulane Environmental Law Journal, 2013, v. 26, n. 2, p. 346
- Article
6
- Pace Law Review, 2014, v. 34, n. 3, p. 1320, doi. 10.58948/2331-3528.1873
- Article
7
- Argumentation & Advocacy, 2021, v. 57, n. 2, p. 123, doi. 10.1080/10511431.2021.1897275
- Article
8
- Cumberland Law Review, 2012, v. 43, n. 1, p. 139
- Article
9
- Maryland Law Review, 2013, v. 72, n. 4, p. 1415
- Article
10
- Journal of Health & Life Sciences Law, 2013, v. 6, n. 2, p. 88
- Cook, Michael H.;
- Evans, Jennifer L.
- Article
11
- William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, 2015, v. 24, n. 2, p. 369
- McConville, Celestine Richards
- Article
12
- Maryland Law Review, 2013, v. 73, n. 1, p. 133
- Article
13
- University of New Hampshire Law Review, 2013, v. 11, n. 2, p. 189
- Article
15
- University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review, 2013, v. 35, n. 3, p. 539
- Article
16
- Boston University Law Review, 2013, v. 93, n. 1, p. 1
- HUBERFELD, NICOLE;
- LEONARD, ELIZABETH WEEKS;
- OUTTERSON, KEVIN
- Article
17
- e-Journal of Science & Technology, 2013, v. 8, n. 5, p. 19
- Article
18
- Journal of Health Politics, Policy & Law, 2013, v. 38, n. 2, p. 255, doi. 10.1215/03616878-1966243
- Article
19
- Cleveland State Law Review, 2013, v. 61, n. 4, p. 1051
- Article
20
- Charleston Law Review, 2012, v. 7, n. 2, p. 317
- Schaffzin, Katharine Traylor
- Article
21
- Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy, 2013, v. 27, n. 2, p. 481
- PARENTO, EMILY WHELAN;
- GOSTIN, LAWRENCE O.
- Article
22
- Connecticut Law Review, 2013, v. 45, n. 5, p. 19
- Article
23
- Emory Law Journal, 2015, v. 64, n. 5, p. 1293
- Article
24
- University of Memphis Law Review, 2013, v. 43, n. 3, p. 639
- Article
26
- 2013
- Ching, Kenneth K.;
- Lewis, C. S.
- Case Study
27
- Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 2016, v. 44, n. 4, p. 576, doi. 10.1177/1073110516684789
- Article
28
- Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 2013, v. 41, p. 77, doi. 10.1111/jlme.12045
- Article
29
- California Law Review, 2015, v. 103, n. 1, p. 103
- Article
30
- Texas Review of Law & Politics, 2013, v. 17, n. 2, p. 204
- Article
33
- North Carolina Law Review, 2014, v. 92, n. 5, p. 1459
- Article
34
- Wake Forest Law Review, 2016, v. 51, n. 5, p. 941
- Article
35
- Creighton Law Review, 2013, v. 46, n. 2, p. 207
- Article
36
- George Washington Law Review, 2016, v. 84, n. 2, p. 511
- Article
37
- George Washington Law Review, 2014, v. 82, n. 4, p. 1052
- Article
38
- Chicago-Kent Law Review, 2014, v. 89, n. 1, p. 503
- Article
39
- Dissent (0012-3846), 2018, v. 65, n. 3, p. 111, doi. 10.1353/dss.2018.0060
- Article
40
- Benefits Quarterly, 2013, v. 29, n. 1, p. 64
- Article
41
- University of Florida Journal of Law & Public Policy, 2012, v. 23, n. 3, p. 345
- Alexander, Mystica M.;
- Gagnon, Timothy
- Article
42
- Cato Supreme Court Review, 2011, p. 31
- Rivkin Jr., David B.;
- Casey, Lee A.;
- Grossman, Andrew M.
- Article
43
- University of Miami Law Review, 2015, v. 70, n. 1, p. 390
- Article
44
- Capital University Law Review, 2014, v. 42, n. 1, p. 1
- Article
45
- Texas Law Review, 2014, v. 92, n. 6, p. 1617
- Article
47
- Yale Law & Policy Review, 2016, v. 35, n. 1, p. 87
- Article
48
- Yale Law & Policy Review, 2012, v. 30, n. 2, p. 461
- Article
49
- Bench & Bar of Minnesota, 2013, v. 70, n. 9, p. 20
- Article