Search for: "Oregon v. Banks" Results 141 - 160 of 272
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 Mar 2008, 9:32 am
Opinion below (Supreme Court of Oregon) Petition for certiorari Brief in opposition Petitioner's reply __________________ Docket: 07-910 Case name: Anderson v. [read post]
26 Apr 2020, 4:25 pm by INFORRM
The Sydney Morning Herald reports that Australian Financial News has settled a defamation claim An Australian-based Chinese news outlet has settled a defamation case brought Guy Hedley, a former head of Macquarie Private Bank by paying $350,000 and apologising for a now-withdrawn article it says contained false claims. [read post]
15 Jan 2009, 3:39 am
As others have commented, the Supreme Court is the most pro-defendant sentencing court in the country right now, although that view may have taken a hit with yesterday’s decision in Oregon v. [read post]
20 Jul 2012, 12:30 am by Monique Altheim
Top stories today via @amendment4 @ajlbryant @genifergraff # Court Dismisses Data Breach Claims Against Countrywide – Holmes v. [read post]
21 Apr 2010, 10:00 pm by Scott Wolfe Jr
The post quotes a recent federal civil case, Summit Community Bank v. [read post]
25 Nov 2006, 12:00 pm
Wachovia Bank, N.A., et al., mentioned in the ILB entry earlier today, will be argued. [read post]
5 Jun 2009, 12:36 pm
Opinion below (9th Circuit) Petition for certiorari Brief in opposition Petitioner's reply brief Brief amicus curiae of Oregon et al. [read post]
4 May 2017, 5:45 pm by Sandy Levinson
Oregon, without the slightest semblance of briefing and adversarial argument? [read post]
5 Mar 2008, 6:38 am
Ct. 1559 (2007), in which the Court held that the National Banking Act preempted states' laws banning "predatory lending" by state-chartered banks that were subsidiaries of banks with national charters. [read post]
21 Nov 2011, 12:49 am by Kevin LaCroix
In a November 14, 2011 opinion (here), District of Oregon Judge Ann Aiken held that the mere allegations in the underlying claim, even if otherwise sufficient to constitute precluded “bad faith” within the meaning of a policy exclusion, were insufficient to preclude coverage where the underlying claim settled and the allegations were not proven. [read post]