Legal Opinion
Frye v. BOWMAN, HEINTZ, BOSCIA AND VICIAN, PC
District Court, S.D. Indiana
Decided January 28, 2002No. IP 99-1455-C-TPublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ENTRY ADDRESSING LEGAL ISSUES ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT
TINDER, District Judge.
This Entry addresses the legal issues raised in the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment which motions were consolidated on September 19, 2001. The issues revolve around whether the Defendant’s Summonses issued to Plaintiffs under state court procedural rules violate the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (the “FDCPA” or “Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1691-1692o.
I.A Summons
The Fryes’ claims under the FDCPA challenge Bowman’s Summonses issued to them in state court litigation. The purpose of a summons is to notify a party…
2Cases cited38 opinions
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Murphy Brothers, Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1999
- Heintz v. JenkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- William C. Lewis v. Acb Business Services, Inc., (96-3093/3498), American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. James P. Connors, (96-3498)Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1998
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Johnson v. RiddleCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2002
- Johnson v. RiddleCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2002
- Ann L. Nielsen v. David D. DickersonCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2002
- Bassett v. I.C. System, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2010
- Rosado v. TaylorDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · 2004
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.