Fedor v. Cingular Wireless Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

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

1. “no State or local government shall have any authority to regulate... the rates charged by”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Metrophones Telecommunications, Inc. v. Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc. · Metrophones Telecommunications, Inc. v. Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc.

2. “Fedor merely argues that Cingular inappropriately attributed calls made in one month to the call-time for a different month, thus assessing charges that were different from the contract terms. A state court analyzing this claim would need to refer to the rates in assessing damages, but would never examine the reasonableness of those rates.... In other words, these claims address not the rates themselves, but the conduct of Cingular in failing to adhere to those rates. That is precisely the type of state law contract and tort claims that are preserved for the states under § 332 as the “terms and conditions” of commercial mobile services.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Wireless Telephone Federal Cost Recovery Fees Litigation