Sarah Goldstein v. Hutton, Ingram, Yuzek, Gainen, Carroll & Bertolotti

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that whether an attorney regularly engages in debt collection is a case-by-case inquiry and outlining several factors to consider in that inquiry
• holding that a volume of 145 collection letters within a year combined with the regular dispersal of the letters over the course of the year was enough to establish that a law firm was a debt collector
• holding that a volume of 145 collection letters within a year combined with the regular dispersal of the letters over the course of the year was enough to establish that a law firm was a debt collector
• holding that a volume of 145 collection letters within a year combined with the regular dispersal of the letters over the course of the year was enough to establish that a law firm was a debt collector
• finding that ongoing relationships with entities engaged in debt collection supported a finding that the firm had regularly engaged in debt collection
• finding that 145 collection notices sent over the course of a year was evidence of regularity

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).