Keller v. McCalop

How courts have described this case

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

• noting proscription of a conspicuous name on an envelope that indicates the contents pertain to debt collection
• taking no issue with the fact that language was not actually written “on an[] envelope” when analyzing the merits of a § 1692f(8) claim based on language visible through a glassine window
• “Even if Plaintiff is correct that an internet search would yield information about [the law firm defendant’s] debt collection work, this is not enough to show a violation of the statute” due to use of the “innocuous” law firm name on an envelope

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).