Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 80 F.3d 148 - Johnson v. Eaton

Johnson v. Eaton’s Empirical Analysis

80 F.3d 148 · 1996

Citation profile

42
cited by 42 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
November 2018
most recently cited

14 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 42 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2018 · most notably Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich, L.P.A. (2010), Mace v. Van Ru Credit Corp. (1997)

14 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions

200199620002010decided

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

Relies on Farrar v. Hobby · Graziano v. Harrison · Perry v. Stewart Title Co. · Emanuel v. American Credit Exchange

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

  1. “successful action to enforce the [claimed] liability”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “A more plausible reading of the FDCPA which accounts for the statute’s structure and its language is that the most a plaintiff can win is actual damages, additional damages and attorney’s fees and costs. However, this does not mean that every time a violation occurs, a plaintiff will win all three. The language of the statute places explicit conditions on an award of additional damages which must be approved by the court and attorney’s fees which are only available where plaintiff has succeeded in establishing that the defendant is liable for actual and/or additional damages.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Johnson demonstrated that White had violated the FDCPA but failed to enforce any liability for actual or additional damages against [Defendant]. As a result Johnson does not meet the explicit requirements of § 1692k(a)(3) that she bring a “successful action to enforce the foregoing liability,” in order to receive attorney’s fees and costs. Johnson’s argument that her success in establishing that White violated the FDCPA is enough ignores the plain language of the FDCPA.”
    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.