Rivera-Lebron v. Cellular One’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
4 district ·
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1601 (§ 102 of the Truth in Lending Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1681 · 15 U.S.C. § 1681A · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1746 · 47 U.S.C. § 151 · 47 U.S.C. § 153
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. · Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger · Thompson v. Thompson · Dartmouth Review v. Dartmouth College
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We thus hold that [the defendant] is not a “consumer reporting agency” as defined by section [1681a(f) ] nor is [the defendant] a user of information gathered by consumer reporting agencies, as it is defined in the statute. Viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiffs’ claim, [the defendant] is a party who furnishes information to a credit reporting agency, and as indicated by Alvarez Melendez [v. Citibank], [ 705 F.Supp. 67 (D.P.R.1988) ], that alone is insufficient to invoke federal question jurisdiction.”
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.