Search for: "Citibank v. State"
Results 21 - 40
of 273
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Dec 2013, 2:05 pm
Citibank and Hooper v. [read post]
28 Aug 2014, 5:35 am
In Shankar v. [read post]
28 Sep 2018, 10:26 am
., Inc. v. [read post]
24 Apr 2017, 9:41 am
In McGill v. [read post]
25 Feb 2011, 7:37 am
On Tuesday, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Stok & Associates PA v. [read post]
21 Oct 2016, 4:05 am
Hope Universal Baptist Church, Inc. v. [read post]
10 May 2017, 1:29 pm
Co. (1998) 71 Cal.App.4th 38, 52 [federal decisions neither binding nor controlling on matters of state law]), but are bound to follow Rusheen v. [read post]
4 Jul 2016, 4:00 pm
Citibank, N.A. v. [read post]
24 Mar 2015, 7:07 am
The employees’ motion was denied and the employer’s motion was granted (Ruiz v. [read post]
14 May 2017, 6:44 pm
Citibank, N.A. v. [read post]
21 Jan 2019, 10:26 am
In the case, Citibank brought a debt-collection against against Jackson in state court; Jackson filed a counterclaim and impleaded Home Depot on an unfair trade practices class action. [read post]
19 Jul 2018, 4:23 am
The “agreement” at the core of an account stated is independent of the underlying obligation between the parties (see Citibank [South Dakota], N.A. v Abraham, 138 AD3d at 1056; Citibank [S.D.] [read post]
21 Jul 2010, 1:58 pm
Citibank v. [read post]
10 Apr 2017, 2:22 pm
Citibank, N.A., holding that state “public policy” precludes the enforcement of arbitration agreements where a class sues for “public injunctive relief” under Business and Professions Code § 17200, California’s much abused “unfair competition” statute. [read post]
10 Apr 2017, 2:22 pm
Citibank, N.A., holding that state “public policy” precludes the enforcement of arbitration agreements where a class sues for “public injunctive relief” under Business and Professions Code § 17200, California’s much abused “unfair competition” statute. [read post]
29 Mar 2011, 2:47 am
Citigroup, Inc. v. [read post]
16 Jul 2010, 1:39 am
And the court concluded by stating: “Since the claimant, Citibank, has not established that it is the owner of the promissory note secured by the trust deed, Citibank is unable to assert a claim for payment in this case. [read post]
7 Jun 2011, 12:40 pm
In December 2008, the law firm sued the bank in state court. [read post]
15 Dec 2013, 9:42 am
Hankston v. [read post]
13 May 2008, 9:54 am
United States v. [read post]
