Sheriff v. Gillie
Sheriff v. Gillie, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the use of the Ohio Attorney General's letterhead, as its direction, was permissible and not a false, deceptive, or misleading representation under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.[1][2]
| Sheriff v. Gillie | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued March 29, 2016 Decided May 16, 2016 | |
| Full case name | Mark J. Sheriff, et al., Petitioners v. Pamela Gillie, et al. |
| Docket no. | 15–338 |
| Citations | 578 U.S. ___ (more) 136 S. Ct. 1594; 194 L. Ed. 2d 625 |
| Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
| Holding | |
| The use of the Ohio Attorney General's letterhead, as its direction, was permissible and not a false, deceptive, or misleading representation under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinion | |
| Majority | Ginsburg, joined by unanimous |
| Laws applied | |
| Fair Debt Collection Practices Act | |
Background
The Ohio Attorney General contracted out debt collection to private attorneys and instructed them to use the Ohio Attorney General's letterhead.[2]
Opinion of the Court
Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg authored a unanimous decision.[2]
References
- SCOTUSblog coverage
- Sheriff v. Gillie, No. 15–338, 578 U.S. ____ (2016).
External links
- Text of Sheriff v. Gillie, 578 U.S. 2016 is available from: Justia Oyez (oral argument audio) Supreme Court
- Nations Finance Debt Collection
- SCOTUS Blog Coverage
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.