Article excerpt

Review Denied

Decisions without published opinions in lower court

DOCKETNO: 09-1461

NAME: Ass' ? of Christian Schs. Inf I v. Stearns

DATE: Oct. 12, 2010

CITATION: 79 U. S .L. W. 3227

DOCKETNO: 09-1358

NAME: Mason v. Columbia Basin College

DATE: Oct. 4, 2010

CITATION: 79 U.S.L.W. 3195

DOCKET NO: 09-1338

NAME: Palkovic v. Johnson

DATE: Oct. 4, 2010

CITATION: 79 U.S.L.W. 3195

DOCKET NO: 10-226

NAME: Sfotter v. U. of Tex. at San Antonio

DATE: Oct. 4, 2010

CITATION: 79 U.S.L.W. 3201

Decisions with published opinion in lower court


NAME: Chae v. SLM Corp.

DATE: Oct. 12,2010

CITATION: 79 U.S.L.W. 3226

Borrowers brought class action against Sallie Mae for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act, breach of contract, unjust enrichment and other claims. Sallie Mae was the servicer for various student loans which borrowers had taken out at various times between 1993 and 2006. Borrowers claimed that Sallie Mae's use of the simple daily interest method, which calculates interest from the date a payment is received, instead of the installment method of calculating interest due, violated state law due to improper disclosure. Borrowers further claimed that Sallie Mae should not be allowed to assess late charges under California law, and that charging interest on the loans before the first payment due date was also illegal. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Sallie Mae. Borrowers appealed. Held: California's state laws were preempted by federal student loan laws. Disclosure of the method of calculating interest on the loans was expressly preempted by federal statute. While the other claims were not expressly preempted, California's statute, if applied to student loans, would conflict with federal law. Thus, the remaining claims were also preempted. Chae v. SLM Corp., 593 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. 2010), cert, denied, _ S. Ct. _, 79 U.S.L.W. 3226 (2010).

DOCKETNO: 10-219

NAME: Pike Co. Jt. Vocational Sch. Dist. v. Knisley

DATE: Oct. 12, 2010

CITATION: 79 U.S.L.W. 3226

High school students subjected to strip search brought suit against teachers involved in the search, school officials and school district (school personnel). …


An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.