Charvat v. NMP, LLC’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

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

1. “(5) Unrestricted telemarketing, however, can be an intrusive invasion of privacy and, when an emergency or medical assistance telephone line is seized, a risk to public safety. (6) Many consumers are outraged over the proliferation of intrusive, nuisance calls to their homes from telemarketers. ⅜ ⅜ ⅜ ‡ (9) Individuals’ privacy rights, public safety interests, and commercial freedoms of speech and trade must be balanced in a way that protects the privacy of individuals and permits legitimate telemarketing practices. (10) Evidence compiled by the Congress indicates that residential telephone subscribers consider automated, or prerecorded telephone calls, regardless of the content or the initiator of .the message, to be a nuisance and an invasion of privacy. ⅜ ‡ $ $ (12) Banning such automated or prerecorded telephone calls to the home, except when the receiving party consents to receiving the call or when such calls are necessary in an emergency situation affecting the health and safety of the consumer, is the only effective. means of protecting telephone consumers from this nuisance and privacy invasion. (13) While the evidence presented to the Congress indicates that automated or prerecorded calls are a nuisance and an invasion of privacy, regardless of the type of call,- the Federal Communications ' Commission should have the flexibility to design different rules for those types of automated or prerecorded calls that it finds are not considered a nuisance or invasion of priv”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Mey v. Got Warranty, Inc. · 245 F. Supp. 3d 771 - Mey v. Venture Data, LLC

2. “In addition to the restrictions on auto-, mated telephone equipment, the TCPA instructs the FCC to issue regulations “concerning the need to protect residential telephone subscribers’ privacy rights to avoid receiving telephone solicitations to which 'they object.” 47 U.S.C, § 227(c)(1). Accordingly, the FCC issued regulations prohibiting “person[s] or entities] [from] initiating] any call for telemarketing purposes to a residential telephone subscriber unless [the] person or entity has instituted [certain listed] procedures for maintaining” a do-not-call list. 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200 (d).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cunningham v. Rapid Response Monitoring Services, Inc.

3. “If the court finds that the defendant willfully or knowingly violated this subsection or the regulations prescribed under this subsection, the court may, in its discretion, increase the amount of the award to an amount equal to not more than 3 times the amount available under subparagraph (B) of this paragraph.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Shelton v. Fast Advance Funding, LLC