George W. Heintz, et al. v. Darlene Jenkins (514 U.S. 291)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided April 18, 1995 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 514 U.S. 291 · 115 S. Ct. 1489
- Decided
- April 18, 1995
- Term
- October Term 1994
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Breyer
- Issue area
- Economic Activity
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court. The issue before us is whether the term “debt collector” in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 91 Stat. 874, 15 U. S. C. §§ 1692-1692o (1988 ed. and Supp. V), applies to a lawyer who “regularly,” through litigation, tries to collect consumer debts. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that it does. We agree with the Seventh Circuit and we affirm its judgment. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act prohibits “debt collectorfs]” from making false or misleading representations and from engaging in various abusive and unfair practices. The Act says, for example, that a “debt collector” may not use violence, obscenity, or repeated annoying phone calls, 15 U. S. C. § 1692d; may not falsely represent “the character, amount, or legal status of any debt,” § 1692e(2)(A); and may not use various “unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect” a consumer debt, § 1692f. Among other things, the Act sets out rules that a debt collector must follow for “acquiring location information” about the debtor, § 1692b; communicating about the debtor (and the debt) with third parties, § 1692c(b); and bringing “[l]egal actions,” § 1692i. The Act imposes upon “debt collector[s]” who violate its provisions (specifically described) “[c]ivil liability” to those whom they, e. g., harass, mislead, or treat unfairly. §…
Excerpt of a 13,394-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.