Newsom v. Friedman’s Empirical Analysis
76 F.3d 813 · 1996
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently September 2021 · most notably Veprinsky v. Fluor Daniel, Inc. (1996), United States v. Sepulveda (1997)
34 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 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. § 1692 (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1692I (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1692K (Sherman Antitrust Act)
Relies on United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc. · Morissette v. United States · Smith v. United States · Brown v. Gardner · Cherek v. United States
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“one of the circuits or precincts into which a state is commonly divided for judicial purposes; a court of general original jurisdiction being usually provided in each of such districts, and the boundaries of the district marking the territorial limits of its authority; or the district may include two or more counties, having separate and independent county courts, but in that case they are presided over by the same judge.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[the plain meaning of legislation should be conclusive.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) There is abundant evidence of the use of abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices by many debt collectors. Abusive debt collection practices contribute to the number of personal bankruptcies, to marital instability, to the loss of jobs, and to invasions of individual privacy. (b) Existing laws and procedures for redressing these injuries are inadequate to protect consumers. (c) Means other than misrepresentation or other abusive debt collection practices are available for the effective collection of debts. * t ook (e) It is the purpose of this subchapter to eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors, to insure that those debt collectors who refrain from using abusive debt collection practices are not competitively disadvantaged, and to promote consistent State action to protect consumers against debt collection abuses.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Spears v. Brennan
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.