Musso v. Seiders’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
3 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1692 (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1692A (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1692E (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1692F (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 636
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Thomas v. Arn · Kramer v. Time Warner Inc. · Marine Midland Bank, N.A. v. Miller · Frank v. Johnson
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in any business the principal purpose of which is the collection of any debts, or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another.”
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.