42 U.S.C. § 201
INTEGRATION OF FUEL CELLS WITH HYDROGEN PRODUCTION SYSTEMS.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 169
cases (29 in the last 5 years), 1945–2026 · leading case: Santos Ex Rel. Beato v. United States
Santos Ex Rel. Beato v. United States (2009)
“Santos's investigations did not reveal, however, that for treatment purposes under the FTCA the allegedly negligent healthcare workers and their employer, York Health, all had been deemed employees *192 of the United States pursuant to the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. §…”
King v. Burwell (2015)
“§ 5000A(f)(4) ; 42 U.S.C. § 201 (f). "This combination, predictably, [threw] individual insurance markets in the territories into turmoil.”
Rowland v. California Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory Council (1993)
“, 42 U. S. C. § 201 (k) ("The term `addict' means any person who habitually uses any habit-forming narcotic drugs"), drunk driving, see, e.”
M.A.K. v. Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center (2001)
“Looking to federal law, the Public Health Service Act (the federal Act) ( 42 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. (1994)) protects the confidentiality of records of "the identity, diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment of any patient which are maintained in connection with the performance of any…”
Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (1985)
“682 , as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 201 et seq.; the Safe Drinking Water Act, 88 Stat.”
Celestine v. Mount Vernon Neighborhood Health Center (2003)
“The PHS Act, as amended by the Federally Supported Health Centers Assistance Act of 1995, 42 U.S.C. § 201 et. seq. (the “FSHCAA”), and in particular 42 U.”
Eli Lilly & Co. v. Medtronic, Inc. (1990)
“682 , as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 201 et seq. ), that is not much of a time-saving shorthand.”
Jacqueline Halbig v. Sylvia Mathews Burwell (2014)
“§ 5000A(f)(4) (exempting residents of such federal territories as Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands from the individual mandate by providing that they are automatically treated as having “minimum essential coverage”); 42 U.S.C. § 201 (f) (providing that the Public…”
Rivera v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons (2019)
“3 The Public Health Services Act ("PHSA"), 42 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. ,"grants absolute immunity to [Public Health Services ('PHS') ] officers and employees for action arising out of the performance of medical or related functions within the scope of their employment[.”
Jeanina Celestine v. Mount Vernon Neighborhood Health Center, United States of America, No. 04-0839-Cv (2005)
“682 , codified at 42 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. 3 . In this appeal, as before the district court, Celestine challenges the timeliness only of the certification; she does not argue that either the removal or the substitution was untimely.”
Gabriel v. United States (2017)
“Gabriel briefly addresses 42 U.S.C. § 201 , quoting this provision as saying that “employees are liable to lawsuits when HHS does not provide remedy.”
I.M. v. United States (2019)
“("Nurse Rubino"), who were originally named in the Complaint, were employees of the Middletown Community Health Center ("MCHC"), that MCHC was a part of the Public Health Service, and that these Defendants were thus employees of the United States Government under the Federally…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.