369 F. Supp. 2d 781 - Dikun v. Streich’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
2 district ·
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. § 1692C (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1692E (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1692G (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act)
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Heintz v. Jenkins · Mylan Laboratories, Inc. v. Matkari · Swanson v. Southern Oregon Credit Service, Inc. · Labram v. Havel
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or-misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section: ,.. The false representation of ... the character, amount, or legal status-of any debt....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The term ‘debt’ means any obligation or alleged obligation of a consumer to pay money arising out of a transaction in which the money, property, insurance, or services which are the subject of the transaction are primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, whether or not such obligation has been reduced to judgment.”
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.