Search for: "United States v. All Funds on Deposit" Results 401 - 420 of 524
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Dec 2010, 1:58 pm by JudicialWatchWeb
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that the United States District Court for the District of Columbia has denied a motion by the Federal Deposit Insurance Company (FDIC) to dismiss a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed on behalf of former FDIC employee Vern McKinley. [read post]
3 Dec 2010, 1:24 pm by Schachtman
  The sordid affair is described in detail in a published decision of the United States Court of Appeals, In re School Asbestos Litigation, 977 F.2d 764 (3d Cir. 1992). [read post]
22 Nov 2010, 10:05 am by Kara OBrien
While the letter makes it clear that a fund board cannot delegate its responsibility to make the required determinations, it expressly states that directors do not have to review each transaction in order to make the required determinations. [read post]
13 Oct 2010, 6:46 am by Amy Bray
  As a result of the pro-government condemnation process traditionally in Georgia, and in response to the United States Supreme Court’s Kelo v. [read post]
12 Oct 2010, 2:36 am by Gary Nitzkin
The real estate contract requires the buyer to consummate the purchase within a certain time of receiving the funding approval from the lender. [read post]
16 Sep 2010, 1:22 pm by Bexis
  Rather:A federal court may act as a judicial pioneer when interpreting the United States Constitution and federal law. . . . [read post]
13 Sep 2010, 7:24 am by Susan Brenner
Furthermore, the intended effects of the conspiracy -- to recover money for Daniels that would be deposited in the United States -- would have impacted the United States. [read post]
1 Jul 2010, 5:20 pm by carie
”On September 9th last year, Stevens engaged in a classic version of advocacy-by-interrogation during the argument of Citizens United v. [read post]
21 Jun 2010, 11:25 am by Patent Arcade Staff
Pierce United States District Court for C.D. [read post]
2 Jun 2010, 6:15 am by Steven Peck
COLA stated that the matter would be referred to COLA's Contract Fiscal Compliance Unit for a determination. [read post]
24 May 2010, 5:26 am by Carter Ruml
The Tax Court described the second transaction as follows: On February 29, 2000, in exchange for all 100,000 CRFLP partnership units, decedent transferred to CRFLP a 30-percent interest in Malkin I, a 50-percent interest in Malkin II, a 99-percent interest in Malkin IV, and a 50-percent interest in Malkin V. [read post]