State v. Gurholt

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that “[r]acketeering activity is any act indictable under several provisions of 6 Title 18 of the United States Code,” identified at 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1) (cleaned up)
• noting that, while at least two acts of racketeering 2 activity are required under RICO to establish a pattern, the pleading of two such acts is not 3 necessarily sufficient to do so
• limiting FDCPA’s reach “to those obligations to pay arising from consensual transactions, where parties negotiate or contract for consumer-related goods or services” (quoting Bass v. Stolper, Koritzinsky, Brewster & Neider, S.C., 111 F.3d 1322, 1326 (7th Cir. 1997))
• all legal or equitable 12 interests of a debtor in property become property of the bankruptcy estate upon the 13 commencement of a bankruptcy case
• “Turner’s underlying ‘obligation’ to pay Yeo and Martini does not arise out of a consumer transaction, and hence is not a ‘debt’ within the meaning of the FDCPA.”
• “Evidence of multiple schemes is not required to show a threat of continued criminal activity ... and, indeed, proof of a single scheme can be sufficient so long as the predicate acts involved are not isolated or sporadic.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).