20 U.S.C. § 1099
Transferred
[transferred]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1991–2021 · leading case: Timothy A. McCulloch v. PNC Bank, Inc., 298 F.3d 1217 (11th Cir. 2002).
Timothy A. McCulloch v. PNC Bank, Inc., 298 F.3d 1217 (11th Cir. 2002). “It appears from the plain language of 20 U.S.C. § 1099 that Congress specifically intended for the HEA to preempt any State disclosure requirements relating to loans under the federal guaranteed student loan program.”
Cliff v. Payco Gen. Am. Credits, Inc., 363 F.3d 1113 (11th Cir. 2004). “, 20 U.S.C. § 1099 (preempting state disclosure requirements); Id.”
Washkoviak v. Student Loan Mktg. Ass'n, 849 A.2d 37 (D.C. 2004). “” Section 28-3904(f) is obviously a disclosure statute, and for the reasons stated by the trial judge, the plaintiffs’ claim pursuant to that provision is expressly preempted by 20 U.S.C. § 1099 . Another provision of the DCCPPA makes it unlawful to “misrepresent as to a…”
United States Ex Rel. Graves v. ITT Educ. Servs., Inc., 284 F. Supp. 2d 487 (S.D. Tex. 2003). “§ 1094 (c)(3)(B)(i)(II); 20 U.S.C. § 1099 (c)(5). However, Relators did not allege or provide authority showing that ITT’s receipt of Title IV, HEA funds in any year was on an “interim” or “provisional” basis,” like the Medicare funds paid in Thompson, subject to forfeiture if…”
April Brannan v. United Student Aid Funds, Inc., 94 F.3d 1260 (9th Cir. 1996). “These express provisions for preemption of some state laws imply that Congress intentionally did not preempt state law generally, or in respects other than those it addressed.”
William Loveland Coll. v. Distance Educ. Accreditation Comm'n, 347 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2018). “Failure to require institutions to exhaust those procedures would render the provisions in 20 U.S.C. § 1099 (a)(6) and 34 C.F.R. § 602.”
Michael Jackson v. Culinary Sch. of Washington, Ltd., 27 F.3d 573 (D.C. Cir. 1994). “Although Congress addressed the issue of preemption in the HEA, specifically displacing state disclosure laws, 20 U.S.C. § 1099 , usury laws, 20 U.S.C. § 1078 (d), statutes of limitation, 20 U.”
Jackson v. Culinary Sch. of Washington, 788 F. Supp. 1233 (D.D.C. 1992). “g„ 20 U.S.C. § 1099 (1982) (loans shall not be subject to state law disclosure requirements); 20 U.”
Tipton v. Sec'y of Educ. of the United States, 768 F. Supp. 540 (S.D.W. Va 1991). “For example, Congress has manifested its express intent to preempt state law regulation regarding borrower-lender transactions in the following specific instances: state disclosure requirements, 20 U.”
Morgan v. Markerdowne Corp., 976 F. Supp. 301 (D.N.J. 1997). “g„ 20 U.S.C. § 1099 (1982) (loans shall not be subject to state law disclosure requirements); 20 U.”
William Loveland Coll. v. Distance Educ. Accredition Comm'n (D.D.C. 2018). “Failure to require institutions to exhaust those procedures would render the provisions in 20 U.S.C. § 1099 (a)(6) and 34 C.F.R. § 602.”
Passut v. Devos (D.D.C. 2021). “20 U.S.C. § 1099 (c). Because the Department’s decision to restore [the Accrediting Council’s] accreditation was unlawful, schools accredited by [the Accrediting Council] remained ineligible to receive federal student aid, and any loans issued by the Department for the purposes…”
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.