15 U.S.C. § 1679j
Relation to State law
This subchapter shall not annul, alter, affect, or exempt any person subject to the provisions of this subchapter from complying with any law of any State except to the extent that such law is inconsistent with any provision of this subchapter, and then only to the extent of the inconsistency.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2
cases, 2007–2011 · leading case: Greene v. CCDN, LLC, 853 F. Supp. 2d 739 (N.D. Ill. 2011).
Greene v. CCDN, LLC, 853 F. Supp. 2d 739 (N.D. Ill. 2011). “15 U.S.C. § 1679j. Plaintiffs seek to resolve their lawsuit against Defendants in one fell swoop, moving for summary judgment on the following four issues: (1) Whether each of the Defendants is a “credit repair organization” under the CROA, 15 U.”
Rannis v. Fair Credit Lawyers, Inc., 489 F. Supp. 2d 1110 (C.D. Cal. 2007). “15 U.S.C. § 1679j. Defendant states that “[t]he attorney/elient relationship between them is thus subject to, and controlled by the exemption in California Civil Code Section 1789.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.