Heintz v. Jenkins
United States Supreme Court
514 U.S. 291 (1995)
- Written by Sharon Feldman, JD
Facts
Darlene Jenkins (plaintiff) defaulted on a bank loan she took to buy a car. The bank’s law firm (defendant) sued Jenkins to recover the outstanding balance. Jenkins had promised but failed to keep the car insured. George Heintz (defendant), one of the firm’s lawyers, wrote to Jenkins’s lawyer and included in Jenkins’s debt the amount the bank spent to insure the car. Jenkins sued Heintz and his firm under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA or the act), alleging that Heintz had violated the act by trying to collect an amount not authorized by the loan agreement and falsely representing the debt amount. The district court dismissed Jenkins’s complaint, holding that the FDCPA does not apply to lawyers engaged in litigation. The Seventh Circuit, disagreeing with the Sixth Circuit, reversed and held that the FDCPA applies to litigating lawyers. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the conflict.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Breyer, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
