Search for: "Banks v. US" Results 5081 - 5100 of 14,531
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Feb 2017, 9:43 am by Beth Graham
Allen Stanford created a massive Ponzi scheme using a large network of interconnected companies and a bank that were collectively known as the Stanford Group. [read post]
31 Jan 2017, 12:14 pm by Charles B. Jimerson, Esq.
First Union Nat‘l Bank, 865 So. 2d 1272, 1276–77 (Fla. 2004) (further stating “we believe that the Legislature intended it to facilitate the use of the other remedies provided in the statute . . . . [read post]
31 Jan 2017, 9:47 am by Olivier Moréteau
Legitimate Expectations in the Common Law WorldEdited by Matthew Groves and Greg WeeksThe recognition and enforcement of legitimate expectations by courts has been a striking feature of English law since R v North and East Devon Health Authority; ex parte Coughlan [2001] 3 QB 213. [read post]
31 Jan 2017, 9:47 am by Olivier Moréteau
Legitimate Expectations in the Common Law WorldEdited by Matthew Groves and Greg WeeksThe recognition and enforcement of legitimate expectations by courts has been a striking feature of English law since R v North and East Devon Health Authority; ex parte Coughlan [2001] 3 QB 213. [read post]
29 Jan 2017, 12:00 am
Over the past three decades, a handful of banks became spectacularly large and profitable and used their power and prestige to reshape the political landscape. [read post]
27 Jan 2017, 8:00 am by Dan Ernst
I have found that bank proponents asserted Congress’s inherent sovereign legislative power to explain Congress’s authority to incorporate the First and Second Banks.The article also presents a novel interpretation of the Supreme Court’s decision in McCulloch v. [read post]
Safe Harbour agreement which was invalidated on October 6, 2015, by the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (CJEU) ruling in Schrems v. [read post]
Safe Harbour agreement which was invalidated on October 6, 2015, by the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (CJEU) ruling in Schrems v. [read post]