120 F. Supp. 3d 976 - Smith v. Securus Technologies, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
2015
Citation profile
4 district ·
Relationships
Applies 47 U.S.C. § 227
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Sweats Fashions, Inc. v. Pannill Knitting Co. · State of California v. Campbell · Jones v. City & County of Denver
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.
“equipment that has the capacity to dial numbers without human intervention.” (Compl. ¶ 12 (emphasis added).) . Ung similarly distorts the record when claiming Universal produced ECC system manuals in response to a discovery request asking for documents”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“autodialed and prerecorded message calls to wireless numbers provided by the called party in connection with an existing debt are made with the 'prior express consent' of the called party.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“and/or using an artificial or prerecorded voice,”
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.