Legal Opinion
Millhollin v. Ford Motor Credit Co.
District Court, D. Oregon
Decided December 31, 1981No. Civ. 75-334PA, 76-475PA, 76-575PA and 76-1090PAPublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
PANNER, Judge:
These four Truth-in-Lending cases reach me on remand from the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiffs purchased automobiles from dealers and financed their purchases through use of a standard retail installment contract. The contracts were assigned to defendant Ford Motor Credit Company (FMCC), a finance company. As required by the Truth-in-Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. § 1631, and Federal Reserve Board Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. § 226.6(a), the first page of each contract disclosed important information on the terms of the agreement. Not mentioned on the first page, however,…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Ford Motor Credit Co. v. MilhollinSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Anderson Bros. Ford v. ValenciaSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Ford Motor Credit Co. v. CenanceSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Mary S. Smith v. Don Chapman, D/B/A Don Chapman Motor SalesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1980
- Richard L. Smith and Deborah L. Smith v. No. 2 Galesburg Crown Finance CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1980
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- The Dow Chemical Corporation v. Weevil-Cide Company, Inc. Research Products Company Hartford Accident & Indemnity CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1990
- Renee Purtle v. Eldridge Auto Sales, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1996
- Nesbitt v. Blazer Financial Services, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1982