Legal Opinion · Dissent

State Ex Rel. Doyle v. Frederick J. Hanna & Associates, P.C.

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided June 7, 2010No. S10A0397Published

1DissentMelton, Justice

Because the FBPA is a law of general application that has nothing to do with impermissibly regulating the practice of law in violation of separation of powers, I must respectfully dissent from the majority’s erroneous conclusion that the remedies relating to Appellee’s allegedly abusive debt collection practices “must be found outside the FBPA.” Maj. Op. at 293. Investigating violations of the law that happen to involve lawyers does not automatically amount to impermissibly “regulating” the practice of law, as a lawyer who violates the law is just as subject to investigation as any other…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Heintz v. JenkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
  2. Federal Trade Commission v. Indiana Federation of DentistsSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Haynes v. Yale-New Haven HospitalSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1997
  4. Heslin v. Connecticut Law Clinic of Trantolo & TrantoloSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
  5. State v. FieldenSupreme Court of Georgia · 2006

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API