Compoli v. AVT CORP.’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 47 U.S.C. § 227
Relies on International Science & Technology Institute, Inc. v. Inacom Communications, Inc. · Nicholson v. Hooters of Augusta, Inc. · Chair King, Inc. v. Houston Cellular Corp. · Foxhall Realty Law Offices, Inc. v. Telecommunications Premium Services, Ltd. · 962 F. Supp. 1162 - Kenro, Inc. v. Fax Daily, Inc.
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The clause in 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b)(3) “if otherwise permitted by the laws or rules of court of a State” does not condition the substantive right to be free from unsolicited faxes on state approval. Indeed, that substantive right is enforceable by state attorneys general or the Federal Communications Commission irrespective of the availability of a private action in state court. Rather, the clause recognizes that states may refuse, to exercise the jurisdiction authorized by the statute. Thus, a state could decide to prevent its courts from hearing private actions to enforce the TCPA’s substantive rights. To that extent, the existence of a private right of action under the TCPA could vary from state to state. That inequality, however, touches only a statutory permission to enforce privately the same substantive rights which both the state and the federal government can enforce in federal court through other mechanisms.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.