Legal Opinion
Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Decided April 5, 1999No. Nos. 98-1024, 98-1595PublishedCited by 209 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Affirmed by published opinion. Judge MURNAGHAN wrote the opinion, in which Judge LUTTIG and Judge KING joined.
OPINION
MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judge:
Plaintiffs, Mohammad and Diana Chau-dhry, filed the present action against Defendants .Michael Gallerizzo and his law firm, Gebhardt & Smith, in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, alleging various violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.CA. § 1692a, et seq. (West 1998). The district court granted a motion for judgment as a matter of law in favor of Defendants on all counts. In addition, the…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Foman v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Freytag v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Spell v. McDanielCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1987
- Miltier v. BeornCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1990
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by209 opinions
- Lori Pettit v. Retrieval Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc., and Russell FuchsCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2000
- Gonzales v. Arrow Financial Services, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
- Newport News Holdings Corp. v. Virtual City Vision, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2011
- Stewart v. BiermanDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 2012
- United States v. SquillacoteCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2000
204 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.