Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Katz

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that legislative history “is useful . . . to confirm that interpretation”
• recognizing that legislative history “is useful . . . to confirm that interpretation”
• explaining that a Maryland Code § 14-202(8) claim requires that a plaintiff establish that: “(1) the debt collector did not possess the right to collect the amount of debt sought; and (2
• describing the MCDCA as a “remedial consumer protection [] statute[] the overarching purpose and intent of which is to protect the public from unfair or deceptive practices by creditors engaged in debt collection activities” (citation omitted) (emphasis added)
• the knowledge requirement under the MCDCA is “actual knowledge or reckless disregard” (further citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).