Weiss v. Regal Collections’s Empirical Analysis
385 F.3d 337 · 2004
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 35 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 164 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2022 · most notably In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litigation (2009), 133 S. Ct. 1523 - Genesis HealthCare Corp. v. Symczyk (2013)
31 federal appellate · 35 district · 13 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1692 (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1692K (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 41 (§ 1 of the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914)
Relies on General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon · Flast v. Cohen · Sosna v. Iowa · United States Parole Commission v. Geraghty · County of Los Angeles v. Davis
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 164 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Representative actions ... appear to be fundamental to the statutory structure of the FDCPA. Lacking this procedural mechanism, meritorious FDCPA claims might go unredressed because the awards in an individual case might be too small to prosecute an individual action.” Weiss, 385 F.3d at 345 . . An additional requirement for class certification not mentioned in Rule 23 is ascertainability of the class, see generally, e.g., Carrera, 727 F.3d 300 ;”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[although [plaintiffs] claims here are not inherently transitory as a result of being time sensitive, they are acutely susceptible to mootness, in light of defendants’ tactic of picking off lead plaintiffs with a Rule 68 offer to avoid a class action. As noted, this tactic may deprive a representative plaintiff the opportunity to timely bring a class certification motion, and also may deny the court a reasonable opportunity to rule on the motion.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[ajbsent undue delay in filing a motion for class certification ... where a defendant makes a Rule 68 offer to an individual claim that has the effect of mooting possible class relief asserted in the complaint, the appropriate course is to relate the certification motion back to the filing of the class complaint.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.