Warren v. Sessoms & Rogers, P.A.

How courts have described this case

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

• declining to establish a materiality requirement for violations of § 1692e(11), which requires debt collectors to disclose their status as debt collectors, because the “statute expressly prohibits this exact omission”
• remanding so that the district court could resolve the defendant’s bona fide error defense
• declining to establish a materiality requirement for violations of § 1692e(11), which requires debt collectors to disclose their status as debt collec‐ tors, because the “statute expressly prohibits this exact omis‐ sion”
• “When a Rule 68 offer unequivocally offers a plaintiff all of the relief she sought to obtain, the offer renders the plaintiffʹs action moot.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
• “When a Rule 68 offer unequivocally offers a plaintiff all of the relief she sought to obtain, the offer renders the plaintiffʹs action moot.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
• “When a Rule 68 offer unequivocally offers a plaintiff all of the relief she sought to obtain, the offer renders the plaintiffʹs action moot.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).