<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="0.91">
 <channel>
  <title>The Oyez Project: Economic Activity Issues - Miscellaneous Economic Regulation Decisions</title>
  <link>http://www.oyez.org/issues/economic-activity/miscellaneous/</link>
  <description>U.S. Supreme Court Decisions, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org)</description>
  <language>en-us</language>
  
   <item>
    <title>F. H. A. v. The Darlington, Inc.</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1958/1958_13/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>FDIC v. Philadelphia Gear</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;Is a standby letter of credit backed by a contingent promissory note insured as a "deposit" under the federal deposit insurance program?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;No. In light of the longstanding interpretation of the FDIC, such a letter does not create a deposit. This interpretation is consistent with Congress' intent in creating the FDIC, namely ensuring that a deposit of "hard earnings" entrusted to a bank would not lead to a tangible loss in the event of a bank failure. In this case, the standby letter of credit backed by a contingent promissory note did not entrust any noncontingent assets to the Bank. Therefore, such a letter of credit does not give rise to an insured deposit.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1972/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>Rainwater v. United States</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1957/1957_276/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>United States v. Clark</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1981/1981_80_1121/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>United States v. Lopez</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;Is the 1990 Gun-Free School Zones Act, forbidding individuals from knowingly carrying a gun in a school zone, unconstitutional because it exceeds the power of Congress to legislate under the Commerce Clause?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Yes. The possession of a gun in a local school zone is not an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The law is a criminal statute that has nothing to do with "commerce" or any sort of economic activity.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_93_1260/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>United States v. Mcninch</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1957/1957_146/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>Zuber v. Allen</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1969/1969_25/</link>
   </item>
  
 </channel>
</rss>
