34 C.F.R. § 668.17

[Reserved]

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 1996–1999 · leading case: Am. Ass'n of Cosmetology Schs. v. Richard W. Riley, Sec'y of Educ., 170 F.3d 1250 (9th Cir. 1999).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Am. Ass'n of Cosmetology Schs. v. Richard W. Riley, Sec'y of Educ., 170 F.3d 1250 (9th Cir. 1999). · cites it 5× “§ 1085 (a)(2)(A),(B); 34 C.F.R. § 668.17 (a)(3). A school subject to termination from FFEL participation can appeal the Secretary’s calculation of its CDR in one of three ways, via (1) an erroneous data appeal, see 20 U.”

Mildred Elley Bus. Sch., Inc. v. Riley, 975 F. Supp. 434 (N.D.N.Y. 1997). · cites it 6× “§ 1085 (m)(l)(B) and 34 C.F.R. § 668.17 (h)(3)(viii)(E). Thus, the Secretary argues that those six loans were properly counted in Plaintiff’s FY 1993 CDR.”

Comput. Learning Centers, Inc. v. Riley, 962 F. Supp. 108 (N.D. Ill. 1997). · cites it 3× “34 C.F.R. § 668.17 (h) (1995). The institution is then given thirty days in which to “review and correct” the information and notify the guaranty agency of any errors.”

Dumas v. Kipp, 90 F.3d 386 (9th Cir. 1996). “§ 1085 (m); see also 34 C.F.R. § 668.17 (e)(1) (1994). In early 1990, the Department of Education (Department) notified the College that its 1987 default rate exceeded the 30 percent statutory maximum, see 20 U.”

Bilingual Inst., Inc. v. Riley, 930 F. Supp. 9 (D.D.C. 1996). · cites it 10× “15 (f)(7)®, (ii) (1993); see also 34 C.F.R. §§ 668.17 (c)(7)®, (ii) (1995).”

New York Inst. of Dietetics, Inc. v. Riley, 966 F. Supp. 1300 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). “, received for attendance at the institution, the percentage of those current and former students who enter repayment in that fiscal year on such loans who default before the end of the following fiscal year.”

Ross Learning, Inc. v. Riley, 960 F. Supp. 1238 (E.D. Mich. 1997). “§ 1085 (a)(2)(A) and 34 C.F.R. § 668.17 (e), (d). In March of 1996, the guaranty agencies, as required, submitted preliminary data used by ED to calculate draft or “prepublication” CDR figures for FY 1994.”

Am. Inst. of Design v. Riley, 969 F. Supp. 936 (E.D. Pa. 1997). · cites it 11× “See 34 C.F.R. § 668.17 (c); see also 34 C.F.R.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.