This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Bartenwerfer also relied on neighboring provisions of Section 523(a)(2), in which it is clear that the debtor’s own malfeasance is required for any limitation of the discharge. Barrett’s last major point discusses an 1885 Supreme Courtdecision ( Strang v.
It would be “bizarre,” she contends, for the liability under subparagraph (A) to leave a debtor unable to discharge a debt incurred through the fraud of another when the parallel provision for fraudulent financial statements clearly is limited to the debtor’s own malfeasance.
” The administration based its argument on several recent Supreme Courtdecisions. 1211(b) states that Special Counsel may only be removed for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” Seila Law LLC v. CFPB and Collins v.
In its petition, Great Lakes claims that choice of law under federal admiralty has been utter chaos since a 1955 Supreme Courtdecision , made tolerable only by strict enforcement of choice-of-law clauses. It argues that the 3rd Circuit’s decision has thrown all of that into upheaval and must be reviewed.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, dissented from the courtsdecision not to act on the Trump administrations request. Under the federal law creating the agency, the president can only remove the head of the office, who serves a five-year term, for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 99,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content