Mark Suesz v. Med-1 Solutions, LLC

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “adopting a new rule while refusing to apply it to the parties before us would raise serious constitutional concerns”
• debt collector violates § 1692e by \suing a debtor after the statute of limitations has expired\
• prospective overruling permissible where “the law has been so well settled before the overruling that it had been unquestionably prudent for the community to rely on the previous legal understanding”
• \[A] prior decision of one intermediate appellate court does not create the degree of certainty concerning an issue of federal law that would justify reliance so complete as to justify applying a decision only prospectively in order to protect settled expectations.\
• “a prior decision of one intermediate appellate court does not create the degree of certainty concerning an issue of federal law that would justify reliance so complete as to justify applying a decision only prospectively in order to protect settled expectations”
• “[O]ne common tactic for debt collectors is to sue in a court that is not convenient to the debtor, as this makes default more likely; or in a court perceived to be friendly to such claims; or, ideally, in a court having both of these characteristics.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Other cases named Mark Suesz v. Med-1 Solutions, LLC

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

• Mark Suesz v. Med-1 Solutions, LLC
  Seventh Circuit· 2013-10-31· cited 4×