US Fax Law Center, Inc. v. iHire, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
476 F.3d 1112 · 2007
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 3 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently December 2024
6 federal appellate · 3 district · 5 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
Relies on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States · United States 77-1359 v. Kimbell Foods Inc · Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States Ex Rel. Stevens · Neirbo Co. v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding 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.
“A person or entity may, if otherwise permitted by the laws or rules of court of a State, bring [a TCPA action].”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“an invalid assignment defeats standing if the assignee has suffered no injury in fact himself.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he -diversity statute, and the TCPA are not irreconcilable. In fact, eliminat ing diversity jurisdiction would produce odd results .... Congress’s apparent purpose in divesting federal courts of federal question jurisdiction over TCPA claims was that small claims are best resolved in state courts designed to handle them. But, this purpose has little force in a diversity suit, which by definition involves an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000.”
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.