71 F. App'x 656 - Kerr v. Dubowsky’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1692 (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1692C (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1692D (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1692E (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1692G (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1692K (Sherman Antitrust Act)
Relies on Barnett v. Centoni · Naas v. Stolman · Mark Weinberg
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the district court properly dismissed Kerr's 15 U.S.C. § 1692d claim because his complaint alleged that Dubowsky's May 2001 call was `unwanted' but failed to allege facts that it was intended to `harass, oppress, or abuse'”
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.