Search for: "Banks v. State"
Results 141 - 160
of 13,906
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Oct 2016, 1:56 am
In AB Bank Ltd v Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank PJSC ([2016]EWHC 2082 (Comm)), Teare J set aside a Norwich Pharmacal Order (“NPO”) made against a bank in the UAE on the basis that the court had no jurisdiction to serve the order on the bank out of the jurisdiction because none of the permitted jurisdictional gateways under Practice Direction 6B to the Civil Procedure Rules were applicable. [read post]
17 Jun 2011, 6:40 am
In his statement to the court in State of Arizona v. [read post]
8 Aug 2014, 12:03 pm
Recently, the United States Supreme Court decision in Alice v. [read post]
8 Feb 2009, 5:28 am
Bank of America, the largest bank in the United States, has agreed to settle a Nationwide Class Action related to its overdraft and non-sufficient fund fee practices. [read post]
28 Apr 2017, 2:12 pm
Appellant Bank of America filed a Complaint and Notice of Lis Pendens against appellee Randel ... [read post]
13 Sep 2018, 10:15 am
– Austin, Aug. 23, 2018) This appeal from a summary judgment for the bank in a credit card collection case illustrates the pitfalls of consumer advocacy in the State of Texas.Taylor v. [read post]
8 Aug 2017, 10:30 am
State, 147 So. 3d 34, 35 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014); Bedford Computer Corp. v. [read post]
15 Jul 2014, 4:24 pm
United States. [read post]
3 Apr 2015, 8:29 am
United States. [read post]
17 Nov 2010, 9:22 pm
People v. [read post]
2 Dec 2010, 3:06 pm
Answer: No, according to the Second District Court of Appeal in American Express Bank, FSB v. [read post]
12 Nov 2008, 3:19 pm
White v. [read post]
7 Dec 2014, 5:00 am
The big banks have backed Schumer for years, which makes sense since he is the senior Senator from the States of New York, which is where all the bankers are located (i.e., on Wall Street). [read post]
6 Aug 2024, 8:33 am
Bank of America reversing the Second Circuit’s holding that a New York State law which requires the payment of 2% interest on mortgage escrow accounts is preempted because such law exercises control over a federal power, regardless of the magnitude of its effects.... [read post]
8 May 2012, 6:42 am
(i) Stanford International Bank Limited (acting by its joint liquidators) (Appellant) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office (Respondent); and (ii) Stanford International Bank (acting by its joint liquidators) (Respondent) v The Director of the Serious Fraud Office (Appellant) (Oral Hearing) Earlier this year, the Supreme Court heard a complex dispute arising from the collapse of Stanford International Bank (“SIB”) in early… [read post]
14 Apr 2012, 6:41 am
Epps v. [read post]
20 Jun 2024, 5:15 am
The Colorado federal district court hearing NAIB, et al v. [read post]
29 Jun 2009, 7:41 am
Watters, in which the Supreme Court held that a state could not exercise visitorial powers over an operating subsidiary of a national bank, many thought that the Supreme Court would extend the OCC's power to near complete preemption of any state authority over national banks. [read post]
19 Feb 2013, 5:00 am
Bank of America, no. [read post]
16 Sep 2024, 12:27 am
The full judgement can be accessed here: ABSA Bank Limited v Rosenburg and Another (1255/2022) [2024] ZASCA 58 (24 April 2024) (saflii.org) [read post]
