Perez vs - Perez vs. United States: Loan shark continued to...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Perez vs. United States: Loan shark continued to increase payments and threatened “violence or other criminal means” US vs. Darby claimed that “a class of activities” was held properly regulated by Congress so they could control wages and hour Here petitioner is a member of the class which engages in “extortionate credit transactions” Class of activities test used in Heart of Atlanta Motel vs. US when hotel didn’t want to serve blacks Consumer Credit Protection Act: section II extortionate credit transactions Found that even though the loans themselves were intrastate, the effects of the money led interstate and foreign McClain vs. Real Estate Board of New Orleans Inc. Price fixing conspiracy: fix, control, raise, and stabilize residential property. Ex. fixed commission rates, sharing fees, suppression of market info Court ruled there were no interstate aspects of the brokers’ roles Sherman Antitrust Act: section I trust or contract regulating trade between states
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 11/23/2011 for the course BLS 342 taught by Professor Miller during the Summer '08 term at Miami University.

Page1 / 2

Perez vs - Perez vs. United States: Loan shark continued to...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online