Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 614 F.2d 968 - Smith v. Chapman

Smith v. Chapman’s Empirical Analysis

614 F.2d 968 · 1980

Citation profile

122
cited by 122 later decisions
8
states following
November 2016
most recently cited

59 federal appellate · 10 district · 18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 122 later decisions — most recently November 2016 · most notably Palmer v. Champion Mortgage (2006), American Title Insurance v. Lacelaw Corp. (1988)

59 federal appellate · 10 district · 18 state decisions

6801980199020002010decided

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) · 15 U.S.C. § 1639 (§ 129 of the Truth in Lending Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1640 (§ 130 of the Truth in Lending Act)

Relies on Central South Carolina Chapter v. Martin · Kinnett Dairies, Inc. v. Farrow · Philbeck v. Timmers Chevrolet, Inc. · Fannie Thomas, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross v. Myers-Dickson Furniture Company, Defendant-Appellant-Cross

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

  1. “Strict compliance does not necessarily mean punctilious compliance if, with minor deviations from the language described in the Act, there is still a substantial, clear disclosure of the fact or information demanded by the applicable statute or regulation.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Fairley v. Turan-Foley Imports, Inc. · 6 Kan. App. 2d 175 - Ed Marling Stores, Inc. v. Miracle
  2. “The question is not whether something is capable of semantic improvement but whether it contains a substantial and accurate disclosure ....”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. 550 F. Supp. 377 - Shroder v. Suburban Coastal Corp. · Williams v. Western Pacific Financial Corp.
  3. “A misleading disclosure is as much a violation of TILA as a failure to disclose at all.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. 711 F. Supp. 2d 390 - Bowmer v. NOVASTAR MORTG. FUNDING TRUST · Sage v. Freedom Mortgage Co.

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.