Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Did you mean lien and collection or consumer or debutant credit?

Your query (lien and collection) or ((consumer or debtor)and credit) returned 13 results.

	HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASSN. V. BLAISDELL [Opinion]
	COHEN V. DE LA CRUZ, 523 U.S. 213 (1998) [Syllabus]
	HOUSEHOLD CREDIT SERVICES, INC. V. PFENNIG [Syllabus] Whether the Federal Reserve Board reasonably classified a fee imposed by a credit card lender because a consumer has exceeded the credit limit as one of the "other charges which may be imposed" under the account [15 U.S.C. 1637(a)(5)] rather than as a "finance charge" [15 U.S.C. 1605(a)], within the meaning of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq?
	SAFECO INS. CO. OF AMERICA V. BURR [Syllabus]
	TILL V. SCS CREDIT CORP. [Syllabus]
	POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY [Opinion]
	HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASSN. V. BLAISDELL [Dissent]
	BATES V. STATE BAR OF ARIZONA [Opinion]
	VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY V. VIRGINIA CITIZENS CONSUMER COUNCIL, INC. [Opinion]
	METRO BROADCASTING, INC. V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [Opinion]
	KOONS BUICK PONTIAC GMC, INC. V. NIGH [Syllabus]
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Dissent]
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Dissent]
	PENNOYER V. NEFF [Dissent]
	PENNOYER V. NEFF [Opinion]
	SWIFT V. TYSON [Opinion]
	TRW INC. V. ANDREWS [Syllabus] The Fair Credit Reporting Act's statute of limitations-which requires an action to be brought "within two years from the date on which the liability arises, except that where a defendant has . . . willfully misrepresented any information required . . . to be disclosed to [the plaintiff] and the information . . . is material to [a claim under the Act], the action may be brought at any time within two years after [the plaintiff's] discovery . . . of the misrepresentation"-is not governed by a general rule that the limitations period begins to run when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know that she was injured.
	POLLOCK V. WILLIAMS [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. BELMONT [Concurrence]
	UNITED STATES V. PINK [Dissent]
	INS V. CHADHA [Dissent]
	CENTRAL HUDSON GAS & ELEC. CORP. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N [Opinion]
	FUENTES V. SHEVIN [Dissent]
	BATES V. STATE BAR OF ARIZONA [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	BATES V. STATE BAR OF ARIZONA [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	FCC V. NEXTWAVE PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS INC. [Syllabus] Section 525 of the Bankruptcy Code prohibits the Federal Communications Commission from revoking licenses held by a bankruptcy debtor upon the debtor's failure to make timely payments to the FCC for purchase of the licenses.
	NEBBIA V. NEW YORK [Opinion]
	CENTRAL HUDSON GAS & ELEC. CORP. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK V. NEW JERSEY [Dissent]
	BUCKLEY V. VALEO [Opinion]
	IN RE PRIMUS [Opinion]
	QUILL CORP. V. NORTH DAKOTA BY AND THROUGH HEITKAMP [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	ALLIED STRUCTURAL STEEL CO. V. SPANNAUS [Dissent]
	QUILL CORP. V. NORTH DAKOTA BY AND THROUGH HEITKAMP [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	FIELD ET AL. V. MANS, 516 U.S. 59 (1995). [Syllabus]
	GENERAL MOTORS CORP. V. TRACY, TAX COMM'R OF OHIO, 519 U.S. 278 (1997). [Syllabus]
	DASTAR CORP. V. TWENTIETH CENTURY FOXFILM CORP. [Syllabus] 1. Does the Lanham Act protect creative works form uncredited copying, even without a likelihood of consumer confusion? 2. May a court applying the Lanham Act award twice the defendant's profits for purely deterrent purposes?
	COHENS V. VIRGINIA [Opinion]
	ROSENBLOOM V. METROMEDIA [Dissent]
	CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO. [Opinion]
	COHEN V. DE LA CRUZ, 523 U.S. 213 (1998) [Syllabus]
	HOUSEHOLD CREDIT SERVICES, INC. V. PFENNIG [Syllabus] Whether the Federal Reserve Board reasonably classified a fee imposed by a credit card lender because a consumer has exceeded the credit limit as one of the "other charges which may be imposed" under the account [15 U.S.C. 1637(a)(5)] rather than as a "finance charge" [15 U.S.C. 1605(a)], within the meaning of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq?
	SAFECO INS. CO. OF AMERICA V. BURR [Syllabus]
	TILL V. SCS CREDIT CORP. [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. ESTATE OF ROMANII, 523 U.S. 517 (1998) [Syllabus]
	KOONS BUICK PONTIAC GMC, INC. V. NIGH [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. CRAFT [Syllabus] Michigan law gives a tenant by the entirety individual rights in the estate sufficient to constitute "property" or "rights to property" to which a federal tax lien may attach under 26 U. S. C. §6321.
	TRW INC. V. ANDREWS [Syllabus] The Fair Credit Reporting Act's statute of limitations-which requires an action to be brought "within two years from the date on which the liability arises, except that where a defendant has . . . willfully misrepresented any information required . . . to be disclosed to [the plaintiff] and the information . . . is material to [a claim under the Act], the action may be brought at any time within two years after [the plaintiff's] discovery . . . of the misrepresentation"-is not governed by a general rule that the limitations period begins to run when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know that she was injured.
	DRYE V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Whether the interest of an heir in an estate constitutes 'property ' or a 'right to property' to which the federal tax lien attaches under 26 U.S.C 6321 even though the heir thereafter purports retroactively to disclaim the interest under state law.
	FCC V. NEXTWAVE PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS INC. [Syllabus] Section 525 of the Bankruptcy Code prohibits the Federal Communications Commission from revoking licenses held by a bankruptcy debtor upon the debtor's failure to make timely payments to the FCC for purchase of the licenses.
	FIELD ET AL. V. MANS, 516 U.S. 59 (1995). [Syllabus]
	GENERAL MOTORS CORP. V. TRACY, TAX COMM'R OF OHIO, 519 U.S. 278 (1997). [Syllabus]
	DASTAR CORP. V. TWENTIETH CENTURY FOXFILM CORP. [Syllabus] 1. Does the Lanham Act protect creative works form uncredited copying, even without a likelihood of consumer confusion? 2. May a court applying the Lanham Act award twice the defendant's profits for purely deterrent purposes?