King v. Time Warner Cable’s Empirical Analysis
2015
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 47 U.S.C. § 227
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Warth v. Seldin
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Prior consent is ‘an affirmative defense for which the defendant bears the burden of proof.’ ” (quoting Grant v. Capital Mgmt. Servs. L.P., 449 Fed.Appx. 598 , 600 n.1 (9th Cir. 2011)); see, e.g., Rawlins v. Stoneberry & Mason Cos., Inc., 1:15-cv-296 (BKS/CFH), 2016 WL 7742810 , at (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 1, 2016); Sterling v. Mercantile Adjustment Bureau, LLC, No. 11-CV-639, 2014 WL 1224604 , at (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2014). A plaintiff”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“To make out a claim under the TCPA, [a plaintiff] must show that (1) [a defendant] called her on her cell phone; (2) using an automated telephone dialing system or pre-recorded voice; (3) without her consent.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“should generally be reserved for resolution of an issue of first impression, or of a particularly complicated issue that Congress has committed to a regulatory agency.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.