Travis Volden, Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Innovative Financial Systems, Inc., Appellee/cross-Appellant

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that a technical and meaningless omission by a debt collector will not amount to a violation and finding substantial compliance with the debtor-protection purposes of the statute
• finding defendant was a debt collector because defendant’s “principal business-some eighty percent-is processing dishonored checks”
• “Though the letter 26 does not say it is from a debt collector, the fact it is sent in an attempt to collect a debt is 27 sufficient for even the unsophisticated consumer to understand that such a letter is 28 necessarily from a ‘debt collector.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).