§Why CasetextPricing

Pfeiffer v. Spellings et al

REPLY to opposition to motion re MOTION for Summary Judgment

9 Cited authorities

  1. Kiska Const. v. Washington Metro. Area Tran

    321 F.3d 1151 (D.C. Cir. 2003)   Cited 50 times

    No. 01-7156. Argued October 22, 2002. Decided March 11, 2003. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 97cv02677). Kenneth W. Starr argued the cause for the appellants. Christopher Landau and Grant M. Dixton were on brief. Kenneth B. Weckstein argued the cause for the appellee. Phillip T. Staub was on brief. Before: GINSBURG, Chief Judge, HENDERSON, Circuit Judge, and WILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judge. Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge KAREN LeCRAFT HENDERSON

  2. Christiansen v. National Sav. and Trust Co.

    683 F.2d 520 (D.C. Cir. 1982)   Cited 39 times
    Holding that a subscriber to a health insurance policy has a "similar proprietary interest" which was not a disqualifying "financial interest"

  3. Cook v. Babbitt

    819 F. Supp. 1 (D.D.C. 1993)   Cited 24 times
    Finding subject-matter jurisdiction for claim arising under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause

  4. U.S. v. Turner

    Crim. Action No. 06-0026 (CKK) (D.D.C. Jul. 12, 2006)   Cited 2 times

    Crim. Action No. 06-0026 (CKK). July 12, 2006 MEMORANDUM OPINION COLLEEN KOTELLY, District Judge Currently before the Court is Defendant Thelma Leonard's Motion for Severance and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof. Upon a searching examination of Defendant Leonard's motion, the Government's Opposition, the relevant case law, and the entire record herein, the Court shall deny Defendant Leonard's Motion for Severance at this time. I: BACKGROUND On January 31, 2006, Peter R. Turner

  5. Northland Capital Corp. v. Silver

    735 F.2d 1421 (D.C. Cir. 1984)   Cited 19 times

    No. 83-1449. Argued February 3, 1984. Decided May 25, 1984. Harris S. Ammerman, Washington, D.C., for appellant. Edward M. Waibel, pro se, for appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (Civil Action No. 81-00549). Before WALD, BORK and STARR, Circuit Judges. Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge STARR. Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge WALD. STARR, Circuit Judge: This case presents a recurring issue, albeit in a unique factual setting, under

  6. Section 1070 - Statement of purpose; program authorization

    20 U.S.C. § 1070   Cited 328 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Authorizing federal assistance for students attending covered schools

  7. Appendix A to Subpart B of Part 685 - Examples of Borrower Relief

    34 C.F.R. § 685 app A to Subpart B of Part 685   Cited 44 times

    As provided in 34 CFR 685.222(i)(4) , the Department official or the hearing official deciding a borrower defense claim determines the amount of relief to award the borrower, which may be a discharge of all amounts owed to the Secretary on the loan at issue and may include the recovery of amounts previously collected by the Secretary on the loan, or some lesser amount. The following are some conceptual examples demonstrating relief. The actual relief awarded will be determined by the Department official

  8. Section 682.202 - Permissible charges by lenders to borrowers

    34 C.F.R. § 682.202   Cited 25 times
    Stating that a lender "may" charge a late fee

  9. Section 685.205 - Forbearance

    34 C.F.R. § 685.205   Cited 10 times
    Noting that periods of forbearance are not included in the 25–year repayment period