Bicking v. Law Offices of Rubenstein and Cogan

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that because defendant failed to satisfy § 1692g(a)(4) and (5) requirements, the alleged violations of § 1692g also state a claim under § 1692e(10)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).