Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that because there was debtor misconduct involving unlawful fees, plaintiff suffered an injury even though he did not actually pay any of these unlawful fees
• ruling that lower court erred in denying FDCPA class-action plaintiff discovery into details of actions against consumers by national network of collection attorneys
• holding that collection letter did not violate FDCPA where it clearly stated that debtor’s request for validation must be in writing, despite subsequent instruction to “call if appropriate.”
• acknowledging that oral notice is not sufficient to preserve all rights under the FDCPA, including, inter alia, the verification right, in the course of evaluating a challenge to separate language encouraging a telephone call
• vacating and remanding a grant of summary judgment for defendant law firm where defendant commenced a lawsuit against plaintiff after the collection letter was sent
• contemplating some level of familiarity with credit card agreement, though not requiring express review in each case

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Other cases named Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P.

3 other CourtListener records share this case name.

• Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P.
  E.D. New York· 2007-01-25· cited 7×
• Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP
  Seventh Circuit· 2009-02-05· cited 3×
• Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP
  Seventh Circuit· 2009-02-05