Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Ehlert v. Ward

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided October 19, 1979No. 61109Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSeiler, Judge

I concur in the principal opinion except as to that part which denies appellant attorney’s fees. The clear language of the Truth in Lending Act directs that “any creditor who fails to comply with any requirement is liable . . . in an amount equal to the sum of [actual damages and in individual actions twice the finance charges and] ... (3) in the case of any successful action to enforce the foregoing liability, the costs of the action, together with a reasonable attorney’s fee as determined by the court.” 15 U.S.C. § 1640(a)(3) (1976) (emphasis added). Just last year, in a case dealing with…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  2. Ratner v. Chemical Bank New York Trust CompanyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1971
  3. Eugene Roosevelt Powers and Lila Virginia Powers v. Sims and LevinCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1976
  4. Sellers v. WollmanCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1975
  5. Neill Hannon v. Security National BankCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1976

11 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