Ronnie E. Brown and Edith M. Brown v. Marquette Savings and Loan Association

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “even though the [defendant] is unable to explain the exact cause of the failure of its procedures in this case, the Court does not deem that fatal to the [bona fide error] defense.”
• suggesting that in the absence of an indication “that the new statute was intended to change the law, the new language is persuasive authority of the proper construction of the original” statute
• stating the TILA purpose is to \provide information to facilitate comparative credit shopping and thereby the informed use of credit by consumers.\
• Congress enacted TILA to \provide information to facilitate comparative credit shopping and thereby the informed use of credit by consumers.\
• “the defendants violated the Act by failing to accompany those new transactions with the requisite TIL disclosures.”
• “We are persuaded ... by the absence of any indication of intent to change the law in the legislative history of the 1980 Act, that a change in the law was not intended by the addition of section 1640(d)”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).