Creighton v. Emporia Credit Service, Inc. (1997)
green
· 30 citation events
across 11 courts.
Showing the 12 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1999 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
199920122026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Garcia-Contreras v. Brock & Scott, Pllc (2011)
P’ship, 53 F.Supp.2d 846, 852 (W.D.Va.1999) (discussing “overshadowing in violation of § 1692g”); Creighton v. Emporia Credit Serv., Inc., 981 F.Supp. 411, 415-16 (E.D.Va.1997) (analyzing an “overshadowing” claim and consistently referring only to “§ 1692g”).
green
Barre v. DCN Holdings, Inc. (2021)
Va. Oct. 26, 2016) (quoting Creighton v. Emporia Credit Serv., Inc., 981 F. Supp. 411, 414 (E.D.
green
Anderson v. Capio Partners LLC (2021)
“Generally, a notice is ‘overshadowing and contradictory if it would make the least sophisticated consumer uncertain as to her rights.’” Talbott, 53 F. Supp. 2d at 853 (quoting Creighton v. Emporia Credit Service, Inc., 981 F. Supp. 411, 416 (E.D.
green
Johnson v. Equity Experts, LLC (2020)
“A prima facie case for violation of the FDCPA requires [the] plaintiff to show three elements: (1) the plaintiff is a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of the statute; (2) the defendant collecting the debt is a ‘debt collector’ within the meaning of the statute; (3) the defendant has violated by act or omission a provision of the FDCPA.” Creighton v. Emporia Credit Serv., Inc., 981 F. Supp. 411, 414 (E.D.
green
Green v. Brock & Scott, PLLC (2019)
Every FDCPA claim must establish three prima facie elements: (1) “the plaintiff is a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of the statute; (2) the defendant collecting the debt is a ‘debt collector’ within the meaning of the statute; and (3) the defendant has violated by act or omission a provision of the FDCPA.” Creighton v. Emporia Credit Serv., Inc., 981 F. Supp. 411, 414 (E.D.
green
McCray v. Deitsch & Wright, P.A. (2019)
Judge Spencer determined the defendant's validation notice requiring the plaintiff's debt "BE PAID IN FULL TO [THE DEFENDANT] UPON RECEIPT OF [THE] NOTICE ... contradict[ed] the validation notice's declaration that the [plaintiff] ... [had] thirty days to dispute the debt." Id. at 415 (capitalization in original).
capitalization in original
green
Bandas v. United Recovery Service, LLC (2018)
Feb. 3, 1995) (finding dunning letter deceptive because “only reasonable interpretation” by unsophisticated consumer was that demand for immediate action contradicted validation notice); Creighton v. Emporia Credit Serv., Inc., 981 F. Supp. 411, 415 (E.D.
applying the “least sophisticated consumer” standard and finding dunning letter deceptive because demand for immediate action contradicted validation notice
green
Thomas v. Midland Funding, LLC (In re Thomas) (2017)
Creighton v. Emporia Credit Serv., Inc., 981 F.Supp. 411, 414 (E.D.
green
Dykes v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC (2015)
Compl. ¶¶ 20-21, 32.) “The FDCPA seeks to protect consumers from abusive, deceptive and unfair debt collection practices by establishing, in part, guidelines for communications by debt collectors.” Creighton v. Emporia Credit Serv., Inc., 981 F.Supp. 411, 414 (E.D.Va.1997).
green
Bicking v. Law Offices of Rubenstein and Cogan (2011)
Servs., Inc., 98 F.3d 131 , 135 (4th Cir.1996); Creighton v. Emporia Credit Serv., Inc., 981 F.Supp. 411, 414 (E.D.Va.1997).
green
Talbott v. GC Services Ltd. Partnership (1999)
Generally, a notice is “overshadowing and contradictory if it would make the least sophisticated consumer uncertain as to her rights.” Creighton v. Emporia Credit Service, Inc., 981 F.Supp. 411, 416 (E.D.Va.1997).
green
Freeman v. ABC LEGAL SERVICES, INC. (2011)
See Creighton v. Emporia Credit Service, Inc., 981 F.Supp. 411, 414 (E.D.Va.1997).