Danny Tuttle v. Equifax Check

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a Connecticut statute which cites to another statute does not answer the question of whether service charges are permitted by Connecticut law and, by extension, permitted by the FDCPA
• holding objection to composite verdict form waived where plaintiff “never asked that the district court prepare separate interrogatories for each prong” and “never objected to the charge on this ground”
• applying FDCPA to twenty-dollar service charge imposed to defray collection costs
• applying FDCPA to $20 service charge imposed to defray collection costs
• under § 1692f(1), “[i]f state law expressly prohibits service charges, a service charge cannot be imposed even if the contract allows it”
• “to constitute substantial evidence, the ALJ must pose a hypothetical question which comprises all of the claimant’s impairments

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).