First Circuit· 12/29/2014

McDermott v. Marcus, Errico, Emmer & Brooks, P.C.

Citations

775 F.3d 109
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 24512
2014 WL 7373201

How courts have described this case

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

noting that \Massachusetts courts have recognized\ that a violation of Chapter 176D \automatically give[s] rise to liability under Chapter 93A\
noting that “a so-called per se violation is not truly per se, as per se findings satisfy Chapter 93A’s first prong only (i.e., that the conduct at issue is unfair or deceptive)”
noting that “a so-called per se violation is not truly per se, as per se findings satisfy Chapter 93A’s first prong only (i.e., that the conduct at issue is unfair or deceptive)”
rejecting defendant’s argument that plaintiff’s 93A claims grounded on FDCPA violations were untimely under the FDCPA’s one-year statute of limitations because 93A’s four-year limitations period applied
“Stating an incorrect amount of the debt undeniably violates section 1692e(2)(A).”
“[A] violation of the FDCPA not only per se violates the FTC Act, it also constitutes a per se Chapter 93A violation.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Souter, Stahl, Thompson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

18 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

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

Other cases named McDermott v. Marcus, Errico, Emmer & Brooks, P.C.

3 other CourtListener records share 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.