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.
11 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 2014–2024 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio 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 |
|---|---|---|
Stratton v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLCgreen2 sentences2024However, the party claiming a violation of the FDCPA does not need to demonstrate that he or she suffered actual damages in order to prevail on an FDCPA claim; [rather,] the FDCPA “places the risk of penalties on the debt collector that engages in activities which are not entirely lawful, rather than exposing consumers to unlawful debt-collector behavior without a possibility for relief.” Id. at ¶ 10, quoting Stratton v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., L.L.C., 770 F.3d 443, 449 (6th Cir.2014). {¶14} Importantly, “[t]he FDCPA ‘“imposes civil liability only upon ‘debt collectors’ as defined by the A 2024However, the party claiming a violation of the FDCPA does not need to demonstrate that he or she suffered actual damages in order to prevail on an FDCPA claim; [rather,] the FDCPA “places the risk of penalties on the debt collector that engages in activities which are not entirely lawful, rather than exposing consumers to unlawful debt-collector behavior without a possibility for relief.” Id. at ¶ 10, quoting Stratton v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., L.L.C., 770 F.3d 443, 449 (6th Cir.2014). {¶14} Importantly, “[t]he FDCPA ‘“imposes civil liability only upon ‘debt collectors’ as defined by the A | 2 | 2 |
Dandrew v. Silver, Unpublished Decision (12-1-2005)green1 sentence2024Cuyahoga No. 86089, 2005-Ohio-6355, ¶ 32 (concluding that Silver did not properly raise his FDCPA violation because he “never alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Act against [Dandrew] through an affirmative defense to the complaint or as part of his counterclaim”). {¶16} “‘Ohio is a notice-pleading state.’” Hall v. Crawford Cty. | 1 | 1 |
Oppenheim v. I.C. System, Inc.green2 sentences2019Sys., Inc., 627 F.3d 833, 838 (11th Cir.2010); McBeth v. Credit Protection Assn., L.P., M.D.Fla. 2019Sys., Inc., 627 F.3d 833, 838 (11th Cir.2010); McBeth v. Credit Protection Assn., L.P., M.D.Fla. | 1 | 1 |
Unifund CCR Partners v. Younggreen1 sentence2019Mahoning No. 11-MA-113, 2013-Ohio-4322, ¶ 28-29 (“[A]n FDCPA claim concerns the method of collecting the debt, not whether the underlying debt is valid. | 1 | 1 |
Gionis v. Javitch, Block & Rathbone, LLPgreen2 sentences2016Id., quoting Gionis v. Javitch, Block & Rathbone, L.L.P., 238 Fed.Appx. 24, 28 (6th Cir.2007). 2016Id., quoting Gionis v. Javitch, Block & Rathbone, L.L.P., 238 Fed.Appx. 24, 28 (6th Cir.2007). | 1 | 1 |
Argentieri v. Fisher Landscapes, Inc.green2 sentences2016The trial court granted summary judgment to FRIC and Cheek on the issue, relying primarily on the decision in Argentieri v. Fisher Landscapes, Inc., 15 F.Supp.2d 55 (D.Mass.1998), for the proposition that setting forth a claim in a prayer for relief filed with a court is distinguishable from other conduct in which a debt collector may engage. {¶ 61} In Argentieri , the plaintiff in a federal-court action alleged an FDCPA violation based upon a request for attorney fees that had been made in a state-court complaint in a breach-of-contract action; the plaintiff asserted that the FDCPA was violat 2016The trial court granted summary judgment to FRIC and Cheek on the issue, relying primarily on the decision in Argentieri v. Fisher Landscapes, Inc., 15 F.Supp.2d 55 (D.Mass.1998), for the proposition that setting forth a claim in a prayer for relief filed with a court is distinguishable from other conduct in which a debt collector may engage. {¶ 61} In Argentieri , the plaintiff in a federal-court action alleged an FDCPA violation based upon a request for attorney fees that had been made in a state-court complaint in a breach-of-contract action; the plaintiff asserted that the FDCPA was violat | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Whittiker v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.
green
2 sentences2020Trust Co., 605 F.Supp.2d 914 , 938- 939 (N.D.Ohio 2009) (setting forth the four elements to establish a prima facie case for a FDCPA violation). ‘“The absence of any one of the four essential elements is fatal to a FDCPA lawsuit.’” Harper at id., quoting Whittiker at 939 . 2020Trust Co., 605 F.Supp.2d 914 , 938- 939 (N.D.Ohio 2009) (setting forth the four elements to establish a prima facie case for a FDCPA violation). ‘“The absence of any one of the four essential elements is fatal to a FDCPA lawsuit.’” Harper at id., quoting Whittiker at 939 . | 3 | 2014–2020 |
Truist Bank v. Eichenberger
green
2 sentences2024Franklin No. 22AP-334, 2023-Ohio-779, ¶ 55 , quoting Helton v. U.S. Restoration -7- Case No. 9-23-39 & Remodeling, Inc., 10th Dist. 2024Franklin No. 22AP-334, 2023-Ohio-779, ¶ 55 , quoting Helton v. U.S. Restoration -7- Case No. 9-23-39 & Remodeling, Inc., 10th Dist. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Lingo v. State
green
2 sentences2022In essence, the Midland parties argued that our decision in Gilbert, which interpreted the Supreme Court of Ohio’s decision in Lingo v. State, 138 Ohio St.3d 427 , 2014-Ohio-1052 , established that it would be improper for the Hancock County Common Pleas Court to determine the validity of other court’s final judgments, thus the class in that case could not be certified. {¶25} Colvin disagreed with Midland’s reading of Gilbert, arguing that to some extent we had already rejected the Midland parties’ arguments in Colvin I,10 and further that an FDCPA claim concerned the method of collecting debt 2022In essence, the Midland parties argued that our decision in Gilbert, which interpreted the Supreme Court of Ohio’s decision in Lingo v. State, 138 Ohio St.3d 427 , 2014-Ohio-1052 , established that it would be improper for the Hancock County Common Pleas Court to determine the validity of other court’s final judgments, thus the class in that case could not be certified. {¶25} Colvin disagreed with Midland’s reading of Gilbert, arguing that to some extent we had already rejected the Midland parties’ arguments in Colvin I,10 and further that an FDCPA claim concerned the method of collecting debt | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Watson
green
1 sentence2021App.R. 12(A)(2); App.R. 16(A)(7); Watson, 126 Ohio App. 3d at 321 . 6. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Jones v. Hartranft
green
2 sentences2020Although the abuse of discretion standard of review is typically applied to dismissals for failure to prosecute or dismissals with prejudice, “that standard is actually heightened when reviewing decisions that forever deny a plaintiff a review of a claim’s merits.” Jones, 78 Ohio St.3d at 372 , 678 N.E.2d 530 . 2020Although the abuse of discretion standard of review is typically applied to dismissals for failure to prosecute or dismissals with prejudice, “that standard is actually heightened when reviewing decisions that forever deny a plaintiff a review of a claim’s merits.” Jones, 78 Ohio St.3d at 372 , 678 N.E.2d 530 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Cincinnati v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.
green
1 sentence2019Corp., 95 Ohio St.3d 416 , 2002-Ohio-2480 , 768 N.E.2d 1136 , ¶ 29. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
City of Cincinnati v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.
green
1 sentence2019Corp., 95 Ohio St.3d 416 , 2002-Ohio-2480 , 768 N.E.2d 1136 , ¶ 29. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
cluster 2357
green
2 sentences2016Id. at 1306 . 2016Id. at 1306 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Frayer Seed, Inc. v. Century 21 Fertilizer & Farm Chemicals, Inc.
green
2 sentences2014We must find that the “trial court’s attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary, or 10. unconscionable.” Id., citing Huffman v. Hair Surgeon, Inc., 19 Ohio St.3d 83, 87 , 482 N.E.2d 1248 (1985). {¶ 24} To assert a FDCPA violation, the Lees were required to assert that: “(1) [they have] been the object of collection activity arising from consumer debt, (2) the defendant is a debt collector as defined by the FDCPA, and (3) the defendant has engaged in an act or omission prohibited by the FDCPA.” Wyant v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, W.D.La. 2014We must find that the “trial court’s attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary, or 10. unconscionable.” Id., citing Huffman v. Hair Surgeon, Inc., 19 Ohio St.3d 83, 87 , 482 N.E.2d 1248 (1985). {¶ 24} To assert a FDCPA violation, the Lees were required to assert that: “(1) [they have] been the object of collection activity arising from consumer debt, (2) the defendant is a debt collector as defined by the FDCPA, and (3) the defendant has engaged in an act or omission prohibited by the FDCPA.” Wyant v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, W.D.La. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Huffman v. Hair Surgeon, Inc.
green
2 sentences2014We must find that the “trial court’s attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary, or 10. unconscionable.” Id., citing Huffman v. Hair Surgeon, Inc., 19 Ohio St.3d 83, 87 , 482 N.E.2d 1248 (1985). {¶ 24} To assert a FDCPA violation, the Lees were required to assert that: “(1) [they have] been the object of collection activity arising from consumer debt, (2) the defendant is a debt collector as defined by the FDCPA, and (3) the defendant has engaged in an act or omission prohibited by the FDCPA.” Wyant v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, W.D.La. 2014We must find that the “trial court’s attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary, or 10. unconscionable.” Id., citing Huffman v. Hair Surgeon, Inc., 19 Ohio St.3d 83, 87 , 482 N.E.2d 1248 (1985). {¶ 24} To assert a FDCPA violation, the Lees were required to assert that: “(1) [they have] been the object of collection activity arising from consumer debt, (2) the defendant is a debt collector as defined by the FDCPA, and (3) the defendant has engaged in an act or omission prohibited by the FDCPA.” Wyant v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, W.D.La. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Robledo
green
2 sentences2014Id. {¶ 28} A "debt collector" is defined by the FDCPA as "any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in any business the principal purpose of which is the collection of any debts, or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or - 10 - Warren CA2014-01-003 indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another." 15 U.S.C. 1692a(6). 2014Id. {¶ 28} A "debt collector" is defined by the FDCPA as "any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in any business the principal purpose of which is the collection of any debts, or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or - 10 - Warren CA2014-01-003 indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another." 15 U.S.C. 1692a(6). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.