§Why CasetextPricing

Santiago v. GMAC Mortgage Group, Inc. et al

Memorandum in Opposition to defts' 5 motion to dismiss

46 Cited authorities

  1. Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Res. Def. Council

    467 U.S. 837 (1984)   Cited 16,170 times   613 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts "must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress"

  2. United States v. Mead Corp.

    533 U.S. 218 (2001)   Cited 2,620 times   41 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a Customs classification ruling "has no claim to judicial deference under Chevron " but can "claim respect according to its persuasiveness"

  3. Barnhart v. Walton

    535 U.S. 212 (2002)   Cited 2,201 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the “‘ 12 month' duration requirements apply to both the ‘impairment' and the ‘inability' to work requirements”

  4. Christensen v. Harris County

    529 U.S. 576 (2000)   Cited 1,905 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Holding that agency interpretations contained in "policy statements, agency manuals, and enforcement guidelines, all of which lack the force of law do not warrant Chevron-style deference"

  5. IN RE FORD MOTOR CO./CITIBANK, N.A.

    264 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2001)   Cited 690 times
    Holding that “the amount in controversy requirement cannot be satisfied by showing that the fixed administrative costs of compliance exceed $ 75,000” because to hold otherwise would be “fundamentally violative of the principle underlying the jurisdictional amount requirement—to keep small diversity suits out of federal court”

  6. MCI Telecommunication Corp. v. Bell Atlantic-Pennsylvania, Inc.

    271 F.3d 491 (3d Cir. 2001)   Cited 485 times
    Holding that states waive their sovereign immunity by voluntarily participating in the scheme established by the Act

  7. Angelastro v. Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc.

    764 F.2d 939 (3d Cir. 1985)   Cited 727 times
    Holding that plaintiff stated a Section 10(b) claim by alleging that her broker's misstatements concerning her margin account interest rate induced her to buy securities on margin

  8. Abdille v. Ashcroft

    242 F.3d 477 (3d Cir. 2001)   Cited 437 times
    Holding that ordinary criminal activity is not persecution

  9. Ransom v. Marrazzo

    848 F.2d 398 (3d Cir. 1988)   Cited 632 times
    Finding that state law entitlement to water and sewage services fails to implicate rights protected by substantive due process

  10. Annulli v. Panikkar

    200 F.3d 189 (3d Cir. 1999)   Cited 215 times
    Holding that list of offenses constituting RICO racketeering acts is exhaustive

  11. Section 1367 - Supplemental jurisdiction

    28 U.S.C. § 1367   Cited 64,200 times   79 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in civil actions proceeding in federal court based solely on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the district court "shall not have supplemental jurisdiction" over "claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule . . . 24" or "over claims by persons . . seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24," if "exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332"

  12. Section 2601 - Congressional findings and purpose

    12 U.S.C. § 2601   Cited 3,491 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Providing purpose of RESPA is "to effect certain changes in the settlement process for residential real estate"

  13. Section 2607 - Prohibition against kickbacks and unearned fees

    12 U.S.C. § 2607   Cited 1,331 times   53 Legal Analyses
    Holding persons who violate § 2607 jointly and severally liable to persons charged with settlement services

  14. Section 2602 - Definitions

    12 U.S.C. § 2602   Cited 337 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Defining "federally related mortgage loan"

  15. Section 2617 - Authority of Bureau

    12 U.S.C. § 2617   Cited 105 times   2 Legal Analyses

    (a) Issuance of regulations; exemptions The Bureau is authorized to prescribe such rules and regulations, to make such interpretations, and to grant such reasonable exemptions for classes of transactions, as may be necessary to achieve the purposes of this chapter. (b) Liability for acts done in good faith in conformity with rule, regulation, or interpretation No provision of this chapter or the laws of any State imposing any liability shall apply to any act done or omitted in good faith in conformity