Legal Opinion
Stephen Hill v. Homeward Residential, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Decided August 21, 2015No. 14-4168PublishedCited by 38 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMcKEAGUE, J., joined by Clay, J., and Bertelsman, D.J.,
CLAY, J. (pgs. 553-54), delivered a separate concurring opinion.
OPINION
McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge.
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act prohibits companies from making automated calls to a person’s cellphone without that person’s prior express consent. We must primarily decide whether a person gives his “prior express consent” when he gives his creditor his cellphone number in connection with a debt he owes. In line with the agency in charge of enforcing the Act, we conclude that this constitutes “pri- or express consent” to be called on that number about the debt. Because the district court’s…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Ortiz v. JordanSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
- Switzerland Cheese Assn., Inc. v. E. Horne's Market, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Philecia Barnes v. City of CincinnatiCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2005
- United States v. KuehneCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2008
- Nolfi v. Ohio Kentucky Oil Corp.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2012
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by38 opinions
- Carrie Braun v. Ultimate JetchartersCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2016
- Adam Gerics v. Alex TrevinoCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2020
- Meng Huang v. Ohio State Univ.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2024
- Zachary Baisden v. Credit Adjustments, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2016
- Ginwright v. Exeter Finance Corp.District Court, D. Maryland · 2017
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.