Hill v. Hobbs

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that this definition causes “the focus [to] shift[] from the act of collecting to what is collected.”
• noting that “we have relied on traditional agency principles in holding parties vicariously liable under the FDCPA” because “Congress . . . legislates against a legal background of ordinary tort-related vicarious liability rules”
• holding a “creditor” could also be a “debt collector” under the FDCPA
• noting that “the Supreme Court went out of its way in Henson to say that it was not opining on whether debt buyers could also qualify as debt collectors under th[e] [‘principal purpose’] prong of § 1692a(6)”
• instructing the district court that, on remand, the plaintiff did not need to show that the principal debt collector “exerted actual control over [its agent] in order to be held vicariously liable”
• noting the standard of review over the denial of a motion for reconsideration is for abuse of discretion but apply de novo review to the District Court’s underlying grant of summary judgment

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).