Search for: "BANK OF AMERICA, N.A." Results 381 - 400 of 420
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 Jan 2009, 6:00 am
Bank of America, N.A., ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (Jan. 21, 2009), the Court of Appeal (First Appellate District, Division Three) held that Labor Code "section 203 penalties may not be recovered as restitution under Business and Professions Code section 17203. [read post]
27 Oct 2008, 9:22 am
Which is why I am linking to Economic presence meets taxing requirement from The Indiana Lawyer:In a matter of first impression, the Indiana Tax Court has ruled that a bank didn't need to have a physical presence in the state to be subject to Indiana's Financial Institutions Tax.In MBNA America Bank, N.A. [read post]
1 Oct 2008, 12:15 pm
The court pointed out that the case Central Bank of Denver, N.A. v. [read post]
7 Jul 2008, 5:11 pm
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; from Dallas County; 5th district (05-06-00065-CV, 232 SW3d 345, 08-15-07) (Justice Johnson not sitting)08-0083 KAREN BROCK MURPHY, AMELIA BROCK BANNER, AND JODY BROCK IRWIN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CO-INDEPENDENT EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF DORIS BERGLUND BROCK AND AS CO-TRUSTEES OF THE BROCK FAMILY TRUST v. [read post]
25 Jun 2008, 6:26 pm
Bank of America, N.A., No. 07-3565 Dismissal of plaintiff's class action claims as preempted by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs alleged the same injuries as claimed by parties in a prior Eighth Circuit case, wherein the issue of preemption had already been ruled upon; and 2) plaintiffs failed to distinguish their case from the previous case. [read post]
2 Jun 2008, 7:55 pm
On April 14, 2008, we filed suit on behalf of an Alabama consumer against Bank of America (FIA Card Services, N.A.) related to its false reporting of an account which had been discharged in bankruptcy several years earlier. [read post]
15 May 2008, 11:21 am
(BAIS), and its parent company, Bank of America, N.A. [read post]
29 Apr 2008, 6:54 am
Bank of America, N.A., No. 06-4755 "In an appeal involving whether mandatory arbitration clauses found in credit card contracts issued by defendants, assuming they were products of illegal collusion among credit providers, give rise to Article III standing, dismissal of plaintiffs-cardholders' antitrust suit is vacated and remanded where: 1) the district court erroneously held that plaintiff-cardholders failed to allege an "injury in fact" sufficient… [read post]