McKinney v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
1 district · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently August 2021
1 district · 15 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. § 771 (CAN-SPAM Act of 2003) · 15 U.S.C. § 77K (§ 11 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78U (§ 21d of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on Shaw v. Digital Equipment Corp. · Shapiro v. UJB Financial Corp. · in Re Stac Electronics Securities Litigation · Melder v. Morris · Sears v. Likens
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“10 but the supplier either fails to offer to cure within thirty days or does offer to cure but fails to cure within a reasonable time after the consumer accepts the offer.. See Ind. Code § 24-5-0.5 -2(6). An incurable deceptive act is”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“See id. However, if either the defect is intentional, or the supplier fails to supply goods or services conforming to the representations, the consumer has a claim under the Act and may recover attorney fees among other remedies. Id. The Act provides for two types of actionable deceptive acts:”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“not state with specificity what the representations were, who made them, or when or where they were made. Most importantly, in most cases they do not plead what the statements were that were false, and in what respect they were false.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.