Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The section notes that property prohibited under sections 506 or 1204 of title 17, and 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2319B, or 2320, or chapter 90 of title 18 are subject to forfeiture as well as destruction after court proceedings. Restitution is mandatory to the victim should a conviction be issued.
Bank of America, N. A. v. Caulkett, 575 U.S. 790, 135 S. Ct. 1995 (2015), is a bankruptcy law case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 1, 2015. In Caulkett, the Court held that 11 U.S.C. § 506(d) does not permit a Chapter 7 debtor to void a junior mortgage on the debtor's property [i] when the amount of the debt secured by the senior mortgage on that property exceeds the ...
Case name Citation Date decided Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals: 506 U.S. 1: 1992: Montana v. Imlay: 506 U.S. 5: 1992: Church of Scientology v.
The criminal penalties under Section 2319 of 18 U.S.C. consist of substantially prohibitive sanctions comprising either imprisonment or fines or both. Section 506(b) also provides for the criminal forfeiture of the infringing property and subsequent destruction of the same at the conclusion of the forfeiture proceedings. [14]
The PRO-IP Act would serve to further protect rights holders in the case of secondary infringement, in which a consumer becomes liable for infringement committed by another. In Capitol Records v. Deborah Foster (2004), the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) could not charge Oklahoma woman, Debbie Foster, with infringement of ...
Revlon, Inc. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc., 506 A.2d 173 (Del. 1986), [1] was a landmark decision of the Delaware Supreme Court on hostile takeovers. The Court declared that, in certain limited circumstances indicating that the "sale" or "break-up" of the company is inevitable, the fiduciary obligation of the directors of a target corporation are narrowed significantly, the singular ...
Based on the evidence obtained by this Subcommittee, numerous federal laws were likely broken by Liz Cheney, the former Vice Chair of the January 6 Select Committee, and these violations should be ...
Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on February 26, 2002. The Court held that for complaints in employment discrimination cases, a plaintiff is not required to allege specific facts that establish a prima facie case as required by the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework.