Search for: "Trust Co. of Texas v. United States" Results 61 - 80 of 289
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 May 2019, 7:21 am by Andrew Hamm
If you were to ask the average citizen what values define the United States, the answer would likely include the right to speak freely without fear of government censorship and a general commitment to a free press. [read post]
18 Jan 2019, 5:07 am by Charles Sartain
Senter & Co. owned an 85.58 acre tract in Arlington, Texas, and made two conveyances: In 1970, Senter conveyed the eastern 30.591 acres to the State of Texas for construction of Highway 360, reserving the minerals and waiving rights of ingress and egress. [read post]
17 Jan 2019, 7:58 pm by MOTP
Any arbitration shall be conducted in Harris County, Texas, United States of America in the English language. [read post]
28 Dec 2018, 4:04 pm
In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 17-421 Filed: December 27, 2018 ALICE KIMBLE, Plaintiff, v. [read post]
23 Dec 2018, 7:53 am by Wolfgang Demino
--> TDCA is broader in scope than FDCPA.In Texas FDCPA and TDCA claims are often brought in the same action, which may be filed in state or federal court. [read post]
17 Oct 2018, 4:19 pm by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer
  Examples of such obligations include the privacy and data security rules of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act (FACTA), the Internal Revenue Code and other tax laws, federal and state consumer debt and information, electronic crime, data security and identity theft statutes; federal and state trade secret and intellectual property laws; and others, for which violations often equal or substantially exceed the civil monetary penalty liability that commonly arise… [read post]
25 Jun 2018, 12:23 pm by Mark Walsh
Amex was sued by the United States and several states, who argued that the anti-steering provisions in its contracts with merchants violate federal antitrust law. [read post]
19 Jun 2018, 3:57 pm by Wolfgang Demino
§ 1692a(6).In Henson, the United States Supreme Court specified that it would only determine whether the defendant was a debt collector pursuant to the second definition of section 1692a(6), i.e., whether the "statutory language defining the term `debt collector' [] embrace[s] anyone who `regularly collects or attempts to collect . . . debts owed or due . . . another.'" 137 S. [read post]