Citation network
Jerman Vs. Carlisle, Mcnellie, Rini, Kramer and Ulrich Lpa
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 21, 2010
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Jerman v. CarlisleSearch
-
Mcnellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich Lpa - 08-1200 (2010) Syllabus October Term, 2009 Jerman V. CarlisleSearch
-
Barlow v. UnitedSearch
-
term more often understood in the civil context to exclude mistakes of law. See, e.g., Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. ThurstonSearch
-
s reading is not supported by Heintz v. JenkinsSearch
-
part and concurring in the judgment. Kennedy, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Alito, J., joined. Jerman v. CarlisleSearch
-
Mcnellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich Lpa - 08-1200 (2010) Opinion of the Court Jerman V. CarlisleSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 08-1200 Karen L. Jerman, Petitioner V. CarlisleSearch
-
see also Cheek v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
purposes of civil liability, even if the actor lacked actual knowledge that her conduct violated the law. In Kolstad v. AmericanSearch
-
a term more often understood in the civil context to excuse mistakes of law. See, e.g., Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. ThurstonSearch
-
cf. Safeco Ins. Co. of America v. BurrSearch
-
quoting Bryan v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 184 , 191 (1998)). For this reason, the dissent missteps in relying on Thurston and McLaughlin v. RichlandSearch
-
or cognate terms has not necessarily implied a defense for legal errors. See Bryan v. UnitedSearch
-
quoting Boyce Motor Lines, Inc. v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. InternationalSearch
-
Ellis v. UnitedSearch
-
that provision not to shield violations resulting from misinterpretations of the requirements of the Act. See Dada v. MukaseySearch
-
see also Rowe v. NewSearch
-
a set of concerns about imposing liability for uncertain legal obligations. See, e.g., Ford Motor Credit Co. v. MilhollinSearch
-
the bona fide error defense to include a violation of the FDCPA resulting from a mistake of law. See Johnson v. RiddleSearch
-
liability for conduct undertaken during representation of a client. See, e.g., Central Bank of Denver, N. A. v. FirstSearch
-
violations of the FDCPA. See, e.g., Fox v. CiticorpSearch
-
see also First Interstate Bank of Fort Collins, N. A. v. SoucieSearch
-
Footnote 2 The District Court distinguished, for instance, Graziano v. HarrisonSearch
-
which Carlisle suggested approved a form with an in-writing requirement, the court adopted the reasoning from Camacho v. BridgeportSearch
-
C. Servs. Corp. , 677 F. 2d 775, 779 (CA9 1982), and Hulshizer v. GlobalSearch
-
to violations of the FDCPA resulting from a misinterpretation of the requirements of state law. Compare Johnson v. RiddleSearch
-
with Picht v. JonSearch
-
of stare decisis , this Court has suggested precedents tend to gain, not lose, respect with age. See Montejo v. LouisianaSearch
-
that ignorance of the law generally is no defense. Ratzlaf v. UnitedSearch
-
Different considerations apply, of course, in interpreting criminal statutes. Safeco Ins. Co. of America v. BurrSearch
-
that context, we have not consistently required knowledge that the offending conduct is unlawful. See, e.g., Ellis v. UnitedSearch
-
court opinion that knowledge of the regulations was necessary. Id., at 562 (citing St. Johnsbury Trucking Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S., at 566 (Stewart, J., dissenting) (quoting St. Johnsbury , supra , at 398). Liparota v. UnitedSearch
-
Haynes v. LoganSearch
-
Palmer v. WilsonSearch
-
Circuit precedent had cast some doubt on those decisions by the time the FDCPA was enacted. See, e.g., Turner v. FirestoneSearch
-
Carlisle also relies on the holding in Thrift Funds of Baton Rouge, Inc. v. JonesSearch
-
see also Starks v. OrleansSearch
-
Compare post , at 2 (Scalia, J. , concurring in part and concurring in judgment), with Herman & MacLean v. HuddlestonSearch
-
fide error provisions in other statutes to adopt a different reading. See National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. v. BrandSearch
-
for abuse of discretion. See, e.g., Carroll v. WolpoffSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial