Search for: "State v. Lende"
Results 81 - 100
of 2,842
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Jul 2020, 2:59 pm
The Main Street borrower must have “significant” operations in the United States. [read post]
25 Oct 2022, 9:20 am
The trade group raised four main arguments: the Payday Lending Rule is unconstitutional because the CFPB Director is insulated from being removed by the President (the same issue presented in Seila Law LLC v. [read post]
26 Aug 2009, 6:00 am
United States, 406 U.S. 128, 153 (1972). [read post]
18 Apr 2012, 2:31 pm
Supreme Court in Griggs v. [read post]
6 Apr 2011, 4:00 am
The case mentioned here is VanCura v. [read post]
29 Jun 2009, 8:49 am
Today, the Supreme Court decided to permit states to police banks for discrimination in mortgage lending in the teeth of some statutory language that looked pretty preemptive, and a regulation that banned them from trying. [read post]
14 Oct 2008, 2:27 am
Quester of the Center for Responsible Lending and consumer advocate and writer Kathleen E. [read post]
19 Jan 2017, 7:11 am
Ultimately, '[g]iven the evolving state of the law, the § 101 analysis . . . is a difficult exercise,' and 'therefore, not an exercise that lends itself to, e.g., shifting fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. [read post]
12 Mar 2007, 5:23 am
McKenna v. [read post]
29 Jan 2010, 11:27 am
The case is Midwest Title Loans, Inc. v. [read post]
9 Aug 2017, 9:09 pm
Nichols v. [read post]
17 Apr 2007, 8:40 am
The Supreme Court issued its opinion today in Watters v. [read post]
16 Jun 2021, 6:53 am
Department of Justice (with the notable exception of enforcement investigations) and other federal and state agencies on fair lending issues. [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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
14 Jan 2018, 6:34 am
(Sindell v. [read post]
