Erienet Inc’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
12 district · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2015 · most notably 132 S. Ct. 740 - Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC (2012), Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC (2012)
12 district · 15 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Franchise Tax Board of the State of California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern California · Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America · Cort v. Ash · Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger · Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson Ex Rel. Thompson
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he bill does not, because of constitutional constraints, dictate to the States which court in each State shall be the proper venue for such an action, as this is a matter for State legislators to determine”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(b) Restrictions on use of automated telephone equipment (3) Private right of action A person or entity may, if otherwise permitted by the laws or rules of court of a State, bring in an appropriate court of that State— (A) an action based on a violation of this subsection or the regulations prescribed under this subsection to enjoin such violation, (B) an action to recover for actual monetary loss from such violation, or to receive $500 in damages for each such violation, whichever is greater, or (C) both such actions. If the court finds that the defendant willfully or knowingly violated this subsection or the regulations prescribed under this subsection, the court may, in its discretion, increase the amount of the award to an amount equal to not more than 3 times the amount available under subparagraph (B) of this paragraph.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“When ... the permissive authorization extends only to courts of general jurisdiction, that authorization cannot confer jurisdiction on unmentioned courts of limited jurisdiction, which require a specific- grant. If a federal statute permissively authorizes suit in federal court, that authorization does not of necessity preclude suit in state courts of general jurisdiction, which are presumed competent unless otherwise stated. But the contrary assertion cannot be true. If a statute authorizes suit in state courts of general jurisdiction through the use of the term ‘may,’ that authorization cannot confer jurisdiction on a federal court because federal courts are competent to hear only those cases specifically author ized.... In light of this difference between the federal and state courts, it is meaningful that Congress explicitly mentioned only state courts in 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b)(3) because under usual circumstances, mentioning state courts is unnecessary to vest them with concurrent jurisdiction.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.