199 N.C. App. 30 - Guyton v. FM LENDING SERVICES, INC.’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
42 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 4001 · 42 U.S.C. § 4053 · 42 U.S.C. § 4102
Relies on Cort v. Ash · Hines v. Davidowitz · Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation & Development Commission · English v. General Electric Co. · Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Assn.
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) To misrepresent or conceal the material facts or make false promises likely to influence, persuade, or induce an applicant for a mortgage loan or a mortgagor to take a mortgage loan, or to pursue a course of misrepresentation through agents or otherwise. (8) To engage in any transaction, practice, or course of business that is not in good faith or fair dealing or that constitutes a fraud upon any person in connection with the brokering or making or servicing of, or purchase or sale of, any mortgage loan. (14) To fail to comply with applicable State and federal laws and regulations related to mortgage lending or mortgage servicing.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]reating 42 U.S.C. § 4104a(a)(1) as creating an independent state law duty would have the practical effect of recognizing an implied private right of action under that statute in all but name. Like other courts that have considered this approach, we believe that it would inappropriately circumvent the widely-accepted understanding that Congress did not intend to create a federal private right of action under 42 U.S.C. § 4104a(a)(l) to directly utilize that statutory provision as the basis for a state law claim. As a result, we believe that a state law claim of the type that Plaintiffs have sought to assert against Defendant, if any, must rest on a legal duty arising under one or more provisions of state law totally independent of 42 U.S.C. § 4104a(a)(1).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“compliance with both state and federal requirements is impossible, or 'where state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.' " Guyton, 199 N.C.App. at 44 -45 , 681 S.E.2d at 476 (quoting English v. General Elec. Co., 496 U.S. 72 , 79, 110 S.Ct. 2270 , 2275, 110 L.Ed.2d 65 (1990) ). The issue of "Conflict Preemption”
2 later decisions 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.