Search for: "Bank Line v. United States" Results 21 - 40 of 1,418
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Mar 2019, 9:43 am by Greg
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals recently went to great lengths to explain how it came to decision with a different result than the United States Supreme Court in Carpenter v. [read post]
14 Jun 2010, 10:00 pm by Rosalind English
In the procedural challenge, the claimant bank relied on a long line of authority, from Cooper v Wandsworth Board of Works [1863] 14 CB (NS) 180 to R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Doody [1994] 1 AC 531, to assert the well established principle that natural justice will in many cases require that a person likely to be adversely affected by an administrative decision must be given an opportunity to make representations on his own… [read post]
22 Feb 2011, 8:00 am by J Robert Brown Jr.
  Under this line of reasoning, anyone selling foreign securities in the United States and closing the transaction in the United States could escape application of the antifraud provisions. [read post]
26 Feb 2013, 9:04 pm by Kirk Jenkins
The Illinois Supreme Court took an unexpected turn in its second civil decision of Friday morning, using State Bank of Cherry v. [read post]
1 Jul 2016, 12:09 am by Anthony Primelo
In April 2016, the Department of Labor’s Administrative Review Board (ARB) settled a twenty-year dispute in Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, United States Department of Labor v. [read post]
15 Dec 2015, 11:35 am by John G. Papianou
  Although the California Supreme Court had held that waivers of class arbitration are unenforceable in Discover Bank, the United States Supreme Court rejected, and invalidated, that holding in AT&T Mobility LLC v. [read post]
15 Dec 2015, 11:35 am by John G. Papianou
  Although the California Supreme Court had held that waivers of class arbitration are unenforceable in Discover Bank, the United States Supreme Court rejected, and invalidated, that holding in AT&T Mobility LLC v. [read post]