Skip to main content

Gray v. Suttell & Associates

Citations

  • 181 Wash. 2d 329
  • 334 P.3d 14

How courts have described this case

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

  • basing in part its finding that Washington’s debt collection statute is ambiguous because the Washington Collection Agency Board “struggled to determine whether debt buyers fell within the scope of the definition”
  • “[D]ebt buyers 14 fall within [the definition of ‘collection agency’] when they solicit claims for collection.”
  • use of “or” is disjunctive unless there is clear legislative intent to the contrary
  • use of \or\ is disjunctive unless there is clear legislative intent to the contrary

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Wiggins

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

23 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

26 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Gray v. Suttell & Associates

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.