Sroufe v. Soto Bros.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that state law permits “a party to maintain an action on an account which has been assigned to him for the purpose of collection, only” because such parties are “holders of the legal title of said accounts”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

8 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Sprint Communications Co. v. APCC Services, Inc.
  Supreme Court· 2008-06-23· cited 726×
• Archer v. Musick
  Nebraska Supreme Court· 1947-01-31· cited 90×
• United Verde Extension Mining Co. v. Ralston
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1931-02-18· cited 20×
• Mosher v. Bellas
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1928-01-09· cited 15×
• Cruz v. Lusk Collection Agency
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1978-03-30· cited 9×
• Leon v. Citizens' Building & Loan Ass'n
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1912-10-29· cited 9×
• Archer v. Musick
  Nebraska Supreme Court· 1946-06-07· cited 5×
• Yates v. Russell
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1919-05-21· cited 4×

Cites

3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Young v. Hudson
  Supreme Court of Missouri· 1889-10-15· cited 28×
• Eaton v. . Alger
  New York Court of Appeals· 1872-01-30· cited 27×
• Gradwohl v. Harris
  California Supreme Court· 1865-07-01· cited 11×