15 U.S.C. § 1367
Repayments
Upon notice by the Secretary to any designated agency or participating institution that no further payments will be made pending substantial compliance, correction, or repayment under section 1366 of this title, any funds which may have been paid to such agency or institution under this chapter and which are not expended by the agency or institution on the date of such notice, shall be repaid to the Secretary and be deposited to the account of the appropriations from which they originally were paid.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases, 1972–2008 · leading case: Neff v. Capital Acquisitions & Mgmt. Co., 238 F. Supp. 2d 986 (N.D. Ill. 2002).
Neff v. Capital Acquisitions & Mgmt. Co., 238 F. Supp. 2d 986 (N.D. Ill. 2002). “15 U.S.C. § 1367 (b) (emphasis added). Defendants claim they are not statutorily obligated to transmit periodic billing cycle statements because they are not within the definition of “creditor” under TILA.”
G.F. Thomas Investments, L.P. v. Cleco Corp., 317 F. Supp. 2d 673 (W.D. La. 2004). “§ 1331 ; and principles of supplemental jurisdiction, 15 U.S.C. § 1367 . As will be set forth below, SLUSA provides for complete preemption in certain areas of securities law.”
Tripp v. Charlie Falk's Auto Wholesale Inc., 290 F. App'x 622 (4th Cir. 2008). “A district court has the inherent power to dismiss a case having only state law claims provided that the conditions for declining supplemental jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C. § 1367 (c) have been met. Hinson v.”
Willis v. Am. Nat'l Stores, 350 F. Supp. 173 (N.D. Ga. 1972). “Furthermore, the Federal Regulation which explains the Act 5 requires the disclosures listed in 15 U.S.C. § 1367 to be made in a single written statement before the first transaction is made on any open account.”
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.