Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Minnesota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
cluster 548994green1 sentence2016See Tullos, 915 F.2d at 1195 . | 1 | 1 |
cluster 366942green2 sentences2016Co., 599 F.2d 1322 , 1323–24 (4th Cir. 1979) (“[A] lender’s claim for debt against a borrower who sues for violation of the [TILA] has none of the characteristics associated with a compulsory counterclaim.”); cf. Peterson, 638 F.2d at 1136–37 (citing Whigham and Valencia with approval in determining whether claim under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is compulsory counterclaim to action to collect on underlying debt). 2016Co., 599 F.2d 1322 , 1323–24 (4th Cir. 1979) (“[A] lender’s claim for debt against a borrower who sues for violation of the [TILA] has none of the characteristics associated with a compulsory counterclaim.”); cf. Peterson, 638 F.2d at 1136–37 (citing Whigham and Valencia with approval in determining whether claim under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is compulsory counterclaim to action to collect on underlying debt). | 1 | 1 |
Anderson Bros. Ford v. Valenciagreen2 sentences2016Ford, 617 F.2d 1278 , 1290–92 (7th Cir. 1980) (“The sole connection between a TILA claim and a debt counterclaim is the initial execution of the loan document. . . . [T]his connection is so insignificant that compulsory adjudication of both claims in a single lawsuit will secure few, if any, of the advantages envisioned in Rule 13(a).”), rev’d on other grounds, 452 U.S. 205 , 101 S. Ct. 2266 (1981); Whigham v. Beneficial Fin. 2016Ford, 617 F.2d 1278 , 1290–92 (7th Cir. 1980) (“The sole connection between a TILA claim and a debt counterclaim is the initial execution of the loan document. . . . [T]his connection is so insignificant that compulsory adjudication of both claims in a single lawsuit will secure few, if any, of the advantages envisioned in Rule 13(a).”), rev’d on other grounds, 452 U.S. 205 , 101 S. Ct. 2266 (1981); Whigham v. Beneficial Fin. | 1 | 1 |
Grandway Credit Corporation v. Browngreen2 sentences1984See Grandway Credit Corp. v. Brown, 295 So.2d 714 (Fla.App.1974) (per curiam). 1984See Grandway Credit Corp. v. Brown, 295 So.2d 714 (Fla.App.1974) (per curiam). | 1 | 1 |
Akron National Bank & Trust Co. v. Roundtreegreen2 sentences1984See also Akron National Bank & Trust Co., v. Roundtree, 60 Ohio App.2d 13 , 395 N.E.2d 525 (1978). 1984See also Akron National Bank & Trust Co., v. Roundtree, 60 Ohio App.2d 13 , 395 N.E.2d 525 (1978). | 1 | 1 |
Gillis v. Fisher Hardware Companygreen2 sentences1980See, also, Gillis v. Fisher Hardware Co., 289 So.2d 451 (Fla.App.1974) (§ 1610(d) cited in partial support for disallowing a TILA claim as a defense to an action instituted to foreclose a mortgage). 8 In our opinion, however, § 1610(d) does not intend to prohibit TILA claims from being pleaded in a defensive posture. 1980See, also, Gillis v. Fisher Hardware Co., 289 So.2d 451 (Fla.App.1974) (§ 1610(d) cited in partial support for disallowing a TILA claim as a defense to an action instituted to foreclose a mortgage). 8 In our opinion, however, § 1610(d) does not intend to prohibit TILA claims from being pleaded in a defensive posture. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Household Finance Corp. v. Pugh
green
2 sentences1984The Pugh decision addressed “whether a debtor may recover for a TILA claim by way of recoupment even though the applicable one-year limitation period would bar affirmative relief on the same claim, * * 288 N.W.2d at 703 . 1984The Pugh decision addressed “whether a debtor may recover for a TILA claim by way of recoupment even though the applicable one-year limitation period would bar affirmative relief on the same claim, * * 288 N.W.2d at 703 . | 2 | 1984–2016 |
Olga Valencia and Miguel Gonzalez v. Anderson Bros. Ford and Ford Motor Credit Company
green
2 sentences2016Ford, 617 F.2d 1278 , 1290–92 (7th Cir. 1980) (“The sole connection between a TILA claim and a debt counterclaim is the initial execution of the loan document. . . . [T]his connection is so insignificant that compulsory adjudication of both claims in a single lawsuit will secure few, if any, of the advantages envisioned in Rule 13(a).”), rev’d on other grounds, 452 U.S. 205 , 101 S. Ct. 2266 (1981); Whigham v. Beneficial Fin. 2016Ford, 617 F.2d 1278 , 1290–92 (7th Cir. 1980) (“The sole connection between a TILA claim and a debt counterclaim is the initial execution of the loan document. . . . [T]his connection is so insignificant that compulsory adjudication of both claims in a single lawsuit will secure few, if any, of the advantages envisioned in Rule 13(a).”), rev’d on other grounds, 452 U.S. 205 , 101 S. Ct. 2266 (1981); Whigham v. Beneficial Fin. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
James R. Peterson and Brenda Peterson v. United Accounts, Inc.
green
2 sentences2016Co., 599 F.2d 1322 , 1323–24 (4th Cir. 1979) (“[A] lender’s claim for debt against a borrower who sues for violation of the [TILA] has none of the characteristics associated with a compulsory counterclaim.”); cf. Peterson, 638 F.2d at 1136–37 (citing Whigham and Valencia with approval in determining whether claim under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is compulsory counterclaim to action to collect on underlying debt). 2016Co., 599 F.2d 1322 , 1323–24 (4th Cir. 1979) (“[A] lender’s claim for debt against a borrower who sues for violation of the [TILA] has none of the characteristics associated with a compulsory counterclaim.”); cf. Peterson, 638 F.2d at 1136–37 (citing Whigham and Valencia with approval in determining whether claim under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is compulsory counterclaim to action to collect on underlying debt). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Jackson v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.
green
1 sentence2012Because Jackson reached its result despite acknowledging this possibility, 770 N.W.2d at 501-02 , and because the appellants have made no TILA claim in this case, the relevance of their observation is unclear. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Bull v. United States
green
2 sentences1992However, the Pugh court went on to explain that the key question to decide the applicability of the doctrine “is whether a TILA claim is properly characterized as recoupment.” Id. 1992However, the Pugh court went on to explain that the key question to decide the applicability of the doctrine “is whether a TILA claim is properly characterized as recoupment.” Id. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Abney v. City of Winchester ex rel. Stephenson
green
2 sentences1980They are imposed by law upon the lender in the making of such a contract and, in effect, they become a part of the contract.” 558 S.W.2d 622 . 1980They are imposed by law upon the lender in the making of such a contract and, in effect, they become a part of the contract.” 558 S.W.2d 622 . | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Hodges v. Community Loan & Investment Corp.
green
2 sentences1980The leading case which has held that a TILA violation does not constitute recoupment is Hodges v. Community Loan & Investment Corp., 133 Ga.App. 336 , 210 S.E.2d 826 (1974), rev’d in part on other grounds, 234 Ga. 427 , 216 S.E.2d 274 (1975). 1980The leading case which has held that a TILA violation does not constitute recoupment is Hodges v. Community Loan & Investment Corp., 133 Ga.App. 336 , 210 S.E.2d 826 (1974), rev’d in part on other grounds, 234 Ga. 427 , 216 S.E.2d 274 (1975). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Household Consumer Discount Co. v. Vespaziani
green
2 sentences1980That statute states: Except as specified in sections 1635, 1640, and 1666e [sections not relevant here] of this title, this subchapter and the regulations issued thereunder do not affect the validity or enforceability of any contract or obligation under State or Federal law. *706 Support for respondent’s argument is found in Vespaziani, supra, wherein the court relied, in part, upon § 1610(d) as a basis for rejecting a TILA claim interposed as a defense to the creditor’s suit for damages. 1980That statute states: Except as specified in sections 1635, 1640, and 1666e [sections not relevant here] of this title, this subchapter and the regulations issued thereunder do not affect the validity or enforceability of any contract or obligation under State or Federal law. *706 Support for respondent’s argument is found in Vespaziani, supra, wherein the court relied, in part, upon § 1610(d) as a basis for rejecting a TILA claim interposed as a defense to the creditor’s suit for damages. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Hodges v. Community Loan & Investment Corp.
green
2 sentences1980The leading case which has held that a TILA violation does not constitute recoupment is Hodges v. Community Loan & Investment Corp., 133 Ga.App. 336 , 210 S.E.2d 826 (1974), rev’d in part on other grounds, 234 Ga. 427 , 216 S.E.2d 274 (1975). 1980The leading case which has held that a TILA violation does not constitute recoupment is Hodges v. Community Loan & Investment Corp., 133 Ga.App. 336 , 210 S.E.2d 826 (1974), rev’d in part on other grounds, 234 Ga. 427 , 216 S.E.2d 274 (1975). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.