Search for: "Bank Line v. United States" Results 301 - 320 of 1,534
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
30 Oct 2015, 10:28 pm by Evan M. Levow
United States, finding that the inherent mobility of a vehicle makes it impractical to require an officer to obtain a warrant before a search—by the time they got the warrant, the vehicle might be halfway to the state line. [read post]
4 Oct 2011, 9:46 am
The Federal Court Judge explained the history of debt collection laws in the United States, stating: "Following World War II there was an explosion of consumer credit in the United States. [read post]
13 Sep 2010, 9:10 am by Francis G.X. Pileggi
The case arose upon a certified question from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. [read post]
6 Apr 2014, 4:00 am by Kimberly A. Kralowec
Andrew Pincus, amicus for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States, finished up Respondent’s argument by first addressing Justice Liu’s question regarding a modified Gentry rule. [read post]
14 Jul 2009, 9:36 am by Peter Klose
(i) For purposes of this contract, the term “Institutional Lender” shall mean any bank, savings bank, private banker, trust company, savings and loan association, credit union or similar banking institution whether organized under the laws of this state, the United States or any other state, foreign banking corporation licensed by the Superintendent of Banks of New York or regulated by the Comptroller of the… [read post]
1 Oct 2019, 6:58 am by MBettman
State, 2018-Ohio-2358 (The General Assembly has authority to enact any law that is not prohibited by the Ohio or United States Constitutions.) [read post]
21 May 2020, 2:17 pm by Josh Blackman
If we are correct that electors hold "public trusts under the United States," then the State of Washington, which fined a faithless elector, has a Bank of the United States problem. [read post]
29 Jan 2014, 5:15 am by David Markus
The high court voted 5-4 along conservative-liberal lines to free states with a history of discrimination from their obligation to obtain federal approval before changing election procedures.Five justices were in the audience. [read post]