Zeltzer v. Carte Blanche Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently December 2016
6 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 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. § 1601 (§ 102 of the Truth in Lending Act)
Relies on Mourning v. Family Publications Service, Inc. · Great Lakes Rubber Corp. v. Herbert Cooper Co. · Donson Stores, Inc. v. American Bakeries Co. · 374 F. Supp. 1266 - Roberts v. National School of Radio & Television Broadcasting · Katz v. Carte Blanche Corp.
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Plaintiff brings this action exclusively under a federal statute, the Truth in Lending Act. At issue is whether Carte Blanche complied with the technical requirements of the Act, and the regulations promulgated thereunder, in terms of disclosure of required credit information in its periodic billings to plaintiff. The outcome would seem to turn upon an interpretation of federal law, as well as upon the resolution of disputed factual issues regarding the disclosures. Defendant’s counterclaim, however, bears no relationship to these matters, but is, rather, a debt collection suit rooted in and governed by state contract law. While the two claims stem from the same underlying business transaction, they involve entirely distinct legal issues: plaintiff’s claim concerns the application of the Federal Truth in Lending Act; the counterclaim does not concern the Truth in Lending Act or any other federal law. Moreover, the factual issues are distinct. Plaintiff’s claim entails proof of a limited set of facts relating to the nature of the disclosures made by defendant. The counterclaim involves proof of a contract, its validity, the record of payments and plaintiff’s default. In these circumstances, where claim and counterclaim lack even a close similarity of factual and legal issues, I find that the respective claims are ‘offshoots’ of the same basic transaction, but not the ‘same basic controversy between the parties,’ and that separate trials on each distinct claim will not involve”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“. [If] accepted, [it] would operate to open the federal courts to a flood-tide of debt collection counterclaims involving ‘questions of no federal significance.’ Such claims are controlled entirely by state law, and the state should have the right to determine them without federal intervention. Zeltzer , at 1225.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In an era appreciative of the salutary effects of limited federal judicial and governmental intrusion into state affairs, Mims endorses the broad exercise of federal jurisdiction, and thus federal power, solely to gain what amounts to little more than adjudicatory tidiness. Id.”
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.