Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 724 F.3d 1312 - James v. Wadas

James v. Wadas’s Empirical Analysis

724 F.3d 1312 · 2013

Citation profile

55
cited by 55 later decisions
1
states following
March 2024
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1692 (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1692A (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1692D (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1692K (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291

Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Heintz v. Jenkins · Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer · Johnson v. Riddle · Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. C.R. England, Inc.

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

  1. “■Most important in the analysis is the assessment of facts closely relating to ordinary concepts of regularity, including (1) the absolute number of debt collection communications issued, and/or collection-related litigation matters pursued, over the relevant period(s), (2) the frequency of such communications and/or litigation activity, including whether any patterns of such activity are discernable, (3) whether the entity has personnel specifically assigned to work on debt collection activity, (4) whether the entity has - systems or contractors in place to facilitate such activity, and (5) whether the activity is , undertaken in connection with ongoing client relationships with entities that have retained the lawyer or firm to assist in the collection of outstanding consumer debt obligations. Facts relating to the role debt collection work plays in the practice as a whole should also be considered to the extent they bear on the question of regularity of debt collection activity (debt collection constituting 1% of the overall work or revenues of a very large entity may, for instance, suggest regularity, whereas such work constituting 1% of an individual lawyer’s practice might not). Whether the law practice seeks debt collection business by marketing itself as having debt collection expertise may also be an indicator of the regularity of collection as a part of the practice.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(1) The absolute number of debt collection communications issued, and/or collection-related relevant period(s), (2) the frequency of such communications and/or litigation activity, including whether any patterns of such activity are discernible, (3).whether the entity has personnel specifically assigned' to work on debt collection activity; (4) whether the entity has systems or contractors in place to facilitate such activity, and (5) whether the activity is undertaken in connection with ongoing' client relationships with entities that have retained the lawyer or firm to assist in the collection of outstanding consumer debt obligations....' Whether the law practice seeks debt collection business by marketing itself as having debt collection expertise may also be an indicator of the regularity of collection as part of the practice.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[1] any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in any business the principal purpose of which is the collection of any debts, or [2] who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another.”
    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.