skip navigation
search

Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Search for:
All decisions
Only decisions since 1991
Only summaries of decisions
Only historic decisions
use and, or, not -- and is default
* acts as wildcard, phrases in "double quotes"

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

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

1000 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?
965 SAFECO INS. CO. OF AMERICA V. BURR
[Syllabus]
875 TILL V. SCS CREDIT CORP.
[Syllabus]
823 HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASSN. V. BLAISDELL
[Dissent]
737 HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASSN. V. BLAISDELL
[Opinion]
730 COHEN V. DE LA CRUZ, 523 U.S. 213 (1998)
[Syllabus]
723 VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY V. VIRGINIA CITIZENS CONSUMER COUNCIL, INC.
[Opinion]
723 BATES V. STATE BAR OF ARIZONA
[Opinion]
688 METRO BROADCASTING, INC. V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
[Opinion]
612 KOONS BUICK PONTIAC GMC, INC. V. NIGH
[Syllabus]
560 PENNOYER V. NEFF
[Dissent]
546 PENNOYER V. NEFF
[Opinion]
546 SWIFT V. TYSON
[Opinion]
532 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.
515 POLLOCK V. WILLIAMS
[Opinion]
515 UNITED STATES V. BELMONT
[Concurrence]
498 UNITED STATES V. PINK
[Dissent]
477 INS V. CHADHA
[Dissent]
477 POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY
[Opinion]
477 CENTRAL HUDSON GAS & ELEC. CORP. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N
[Opinion]
463 BATES V. STATE BAR OF ARIZONA
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
463 BATES V. STATE BAR OF ARIZONA
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
463 FUENTES V. SHEVIN
[Dissent]
453 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.
453 NEBBIA V. NEW YORK
[Opinion]
429 UNITED STATES TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK V. NEW JERSEY
[Dissent]
429 CENTRAL HUDSON GAS & ELEC. CORP. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N
[Dissent]
425 BUCKLEY V. VALEO
[Opinion]
356 SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA
[Dissent]
356 SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA
[Dissent]
356 IN RE PRIMUS
[Opinion]
307 ALLIED STRUCTURAL STEEL CO. V. SPANNAUS
[Dissent]
307 QUILL CORP. V. NORTH DAKOTA BY AND THROUGH HEITKAMP
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
307 QUILL CORP. V. NORTH DAKOTA BY AND THROUGH HEITKAMP
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
238
[Syllabus]
238 FIELD ET AL. V. MANS, 516 U.S. 59 (1995).
[Syllabus]
238 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?
238 ROSENBLOOM V. METROMEDIA
[Dissent]
238 CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO.
[Opinion]
238 COHENS V. VIRGINIA
[Opinion]
1000 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?
965 SAFECO INS. CO. OF AMERICA V. BURR
[Syllabus]
875 TILL V. SCS CREDIT CORP.
[Syllabus]
730 COHEN V. DE LA CRUZ, 523 U.S. 213 (1998)
[Syllabus]
705 UNITED STATES V. ESTATE OF ROMANII, 523 U.S. 517 (1998)
[Syllabus]
612 KOONS BUICK PONTIAC GMC, INC. V. NIGH
[Syllabus]
574 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.
532 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.
463 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.
453 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.
238
[Syllabus]
238 FIELD ET AL. V. MANS, 516 U.S. 59 (1995).
[Syllabus]
238 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?