Samuel L. Emanuel, Cross-Appellee v. American Credit Exchange, Cross-Appellant

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “there simply is no requirement that” a letter sent by a debt collector “quote verbatim the language of [Section 1692e(11)]”
• holding that a single, trivial, and unintentional violation of the FDCPA is not enough for an award of statutory damages, “particularly since such damages are discretionary” and no actual damages were shown
• FDCPA defendant’s “claim for malicious prosecution cannot succeed unless the action subject of the claim is unsuccessful”
• FDCPA defendant’s “claim for malicious prosecution cannot succeed unless the 8 JERMAN v. CARLISLE, MCNELLIE, RINI, KRAMER & ULRICH LPA KENNEDY, J., dissenting action subject of the claim is unsuccessful”
• same, even where the plaintiff suffered no actual damages

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).