Source: https://novocreditsolutions.com/education/case-law-reference/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 08:38:58+00:00

Document:
Nakao v. International Data Services (D. Hi. 03-00225 SPK/BMK – October 18, 2004) .Variousissues FDCPA theories discussed including vicarious liability of collection employee andcollection of disputed amounts. More analysis to follow.
Freyermuth v. Credit Bureau Services. Inc. 248 F.3d 767 (8th Cir. 2001). The Defendant’sattempt to collect commercially reasonable service fees, which were otherwise allowable underthe Nebraska UCC, did not violate the FDCPA. Collection on a time-barred debt not a violationof the FDCPA as long as there was no actual or implied threat of litigation.
Sonmore v. Checkrite – SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER – USDC Minn. – CV-99-2039 DDA-FLN – District Court denies summary judgment to debt collector who sent allegedly deceptive collection letters.
Lake v. Wal-Mart – 582 NW2d 231 – D. Minn. 1998 – Minnesota Supreme Court first recognizes the tort of invasion of privacy, adopting the Restatement Second standards.
O’Brien v. Minnesota Recovery Bureau – Wright County Minn. – Court File C8-99-470 – Firstknown jury verdict on a theory of invasion of privacy awarded against repossession agency to ahusband and wife. Verdict: $15,000.
Bodah v. Lakeville Motor Express C5-02-276 Minn.Ct.App. August 20, 2002 – Minnesota Courtof Appeals reverses and remands a case which the district court dismissed for failure to state aclaim. Dismissal of appellants complaint pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e) for failure to statea claim upon which relief may be granted is premature when appellants allege that (1) their rightto privacy has been violated by the improper dissemination of their social security numbers to 16affiliated business sites in six states; (2) the numbers are still being shared and are accessible in general; and (3) they have and will incur costs to monitor credit ratings and take preventative measures against identity theft. Reversed and remanded. Minge, Judge.
Akerlund v. TCF – Summary Judgment Order – June 11, 2001 – The Court finds that a trespassentry onto postal service property is a breach of peace.
Reinke v. Harold Chevrolet-Geo – Minn.Ct.App. C902-409 – August 20, 2002 – The MinnesotaCourt of Appeals finds that Minnesota courts ruling on class certification are not required to makespecific findings on the proper measure of damages, or the specific proof required to substantiateeach element of the underlying claims.
Lewy v. Investment Advisors Inc. C6-02-416 (Minn.Ct.App. 2002) The Minnesota Court of Appeals finds certification of a class under Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 23 is proper whenthe class satisfies the mandatory requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, andadequacy of representation, and if common questions of law and fact predominate to make a classaction the superior method for fairly and efficiently resolving the controversy. When commonquestions of law and fact predominate on the cause of damages, individual variations on theamount of damages will not preclude class certification.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.