Search for: "State v. Banks" Results 841 - 860 of 14,220
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Nov 2010, 6:34 am by David Zaring
  And to suggest otherwise, as the COP does, seems to me to be a basic error in the application of the state action doctrine, unless they're arguing that banks are now state actors, via TARP (no way), or that, because of Shelley v. [read post]
21 Dec 2015, 1:39 pm by HRWatchdog
This statement of law was based upon the California Supreme Court’s holding in Discover Bank v. [read post]
18 Jan 2022, 1:41 am by rainey Reitman
  She has spoken about blockchain law around the world, including presenting during the World Economic Forum, testifying before the New York State Senate,  speaking in the European Parliament, and testifying before the United States Congress. [read post]
In its Demurrer to the cross-complaint, OppFi argues that the DFPI’s claim that the Program Loans violate the CFL fails as a matter of law because the Program Loans were made by the Bank and loans made by a state-chartered bank are exempt from the CFL’s rate cap pursuant to the usury exemption for state-chartered banks in the state’s Constitution as well as the CFL’s exemption for such banks. [read post]
26 May 2010, 1:40 pm by Julie Lam
  Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Watters v Wachovia Bank, NA, 550 US 1 (2000), the Court of Appeals focused on the exercise of the national bank’s power to make real estate transactions. [read post]
16 Nov 2012, 9:14 am
., which is owned by the Royal Bank of Scotland, and in substantial part, operates from kiosks located in traditional retail bank branch offices of Citizens Bank. [read post]
19 Dec 2013, 1:04 pm by WOLFGANG DEMINO
Current rules give unfair advantage to mass-litigation attorneys targeting Texas consumersLabeau v. [read post]
9 Feb 2009, 9:00 am
In Matter of People of State of New York v. [read post]
9 Feb 2022, 10:00 pm
The decision—which held that, under some circumstances, a loan originated by a bank became subject to state usury laws once transferred to a non-bank—implicitly rejected the long-standing doctrine of “valid when made” and once threatened to upend the lending industry. [read post]