Weinberg v. Sprint Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
9 district · 6 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1367 · 28 U.S.C. § 1407 · 28 U.S.C. § 1441 · 28 U.S.C. § 1447 · 47 U.S.C. § 151 · 47 U.S.C. § 201
Relies on Franchise Tax Board of the State of California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern California · Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams · Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Taylor · Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp. · Gully v. First Nat. Bank in Meridian
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Clearly Congress has evidenced an intent to achieve a uniform telecommunications system through the application of federal law to the standards of services provided by common carriers. See MCI Telecommunications, 71 F.3d at 1094 . The Court, however, is unable to locate any indication of a Congressional intent to apply federal law uniformly to challenges . to a common carrier’s advertising and promotional practices.”
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.