15 U.S.C. § 1614
Repealed. Pub. L. 96–221, title VI, § 616(b), Mar. 31, 1980, 94 Stat. 182
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26
cases, 1975–1986 · leading case: Anderson Bros. Ford v. Valencia, 452 U.S. 205 (1981).
Anderson Bros. Ford v. Valencia, 452 U.S. 205 (1981). “15 U. S. C. §§ 1614 and 1640. [5] The TILA does not state that the disclosure required by the statute must be made on the face of the contract.”
J. A. Pollock & Sharon M. Pollock v. Birmingham Trust Nat'l Bank, 650 F.2d 807 (5th Cir. 1981). “” 15 U.S.C. § 1614 . Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment after limited discovery, consisting of interrogatories, none of the answers to which established in any factual detail the ongoing business relationship between the Bank and the automobile dealer.”
Provident Credit Corp. v. Young, 446 A.2d 257 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1982). “Under both the Truth-in-Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1614 , and the Motor Vehicle Sales Finance Act, 69 P.”
Cenance v. Bohn Ford, Inc., 430 F. Supp. 1064 (E.D. La. 1977). “The passage of a new provision limiting the liability of assignees in 1974, 15 U.S.C. § 1614 , does not alter that rule.”
Kramer v. Marine Midland Bank, 559 F. Supp. 273 (S.D.N.Y. 1983). “2d 744 , holding that a lender in the bank’s position is a “creditor” for TILA purposes, the bank has wisely chosen in later briefs not to press its initial argument that, as a “subsequent assignee,” it was protected from liability under 15 U.S.C. § 1614 49 because the alleged…”
Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Cenance, 452 U.S. 155 (1981). “In this regard petitioner cites the failure of Congress to adopt an amendment to the Act which would have limited the applicability of § 1614 to those subsequent assignees not “in a continuing business relationship with the original creditor.” 114 Cong.”
Melanie M. Layfield v. Bill Heard Chevrolet Co. & Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 607 F.2d 1097 (5th Cir. 1979). “15 U.S.C.A. § 1614 . We conclude that the district court acted within its discretion in denying the appellant leave to amend her complaint, and that summary judgment was properly granted in favor of the appellees.”
Margie Cox v. First Nat'l Bank of Cincinnati, 751 F.2d 815 (1st Cir. 1985). “1500 , 1520 (1974) (formerly 15 U.S.C. § 1614 ). The district court found that the failure to disclose the downpayment was not apparent on the face of the disclosure statement and Cox concedes that this is correct.”
Williams v. Bill Watson Ford, Inc., 423 F. Supp. 345 (E.D. La. 1976). “§ 1614 dealing with the liability of assignees: “Except as otherwise specifically provided in this subchapter, any civil action for a violation of this subchapter which may be brought against the original creditor in any credit transaction may be maintained against any…”
Sharon Rachbach, & Cross-Appellant v. John M. Cogswell & Saul N. Davidson, & the Pub. Tr. of the Cnty. of Arapahoe, State of Colorado, 547 F.2d 502 (10th Cir. 1977). “Cogswell contends that the action is barred by 15 U.S.C. § 1614 , a 1974 amendment to the Truth in Lending Act which provides that a civil action under the Act may not be brought against an assignee except under conditions not here present.”
James W. Price v. Franklin Inv. Co., Inc., 574 F.2d 594 (D.C. Cir. 1978). “1520 , as codified, 15 U.S.C. § 1614 (Supp. V 1975). Unlike other provisions of the 1974 amendments, this new section was not *603 expressly made applicable to pending cases or causes of action already accrued.”
Copley v. Rona Enter., Inc., 423 F. Supp. 979 (S.D. Ohio 1976). “Plaintiffs do not assert that this document contained any Truth in Lending violation which was apparent on the face of the instrument; see 15 U.S.C. § 1614 , which was added with prospective effect by the 1974 amendments.”
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.