Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 294 F. Supp. 2d 834 - Accounting Outsourcing, LLC v. Verizon Wireless Personal Communications, LP

294 F. Supp. 2d 834 - Accounting Outsourcing, LLC v. Verizon Wireless Personal Communications, LP’s Empirical Analysis

2003

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
1
states following
April 2011
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1341 · 28 U.S.C. § 1342 · 47 U.S.C. § 227

Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States · Rosewell v. National Bank · California v. Grace Brethren Church · Jefferson County v. Acker

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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “create the anomalous result that state law claims based on unlawful telephone calls could be brought in federal court, while federal TCPA claims based on those same calls could be heard only in state court.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The district courts shall not enjoin, suspend or restrain the operation of, or compliance with, any order affecting rates chargeable by a public utility and made by a State administrative agency or a rate-making body of a State political subdivision, where: (1) Jurisdiction is based solely on diversity of citizenship or repugnance of the order to the Federal Constitution; and, (2) The order does not interfere with interstate commerce; and, (3) The order has been made after reasonable notice and hearing; and, (4) A plain, speedy and efficient remedy may be had in the courts of such State.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “stop out-of-state corporations from using diversity jurisdiction to gain injunctive relief against a state tax in federal court....” Jefferson County, Ala. v. Acker, 527 U.S. 423 , 435, 119 S.Ct. 2069 , 144 L.Ed.2d 408 (1999). Both the Johnson Act and the TIA”
    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.