Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 831 FSUPP 321 - Sluys v. Hand

Sluys v. Hand’s Empirical Analysis

1993

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
2
states following
December 2017
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 6 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently December 2017 · most notably Eades v. Kennedy, PC Law Offices (2015), 933 F. Supp. 1148 - Cavallaro v. Law Office of Shapiro & Kreisman (1996)

3 federal appellate · 6 district · 2 state decisions

120199320002010decided

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. § 1692A (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1692C (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. § 1692I (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1692K (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 45 (§ 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914)

Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz · Hanson v. Denckla · Bibby 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Where an alleged debtor is located in a jurisdiction and receives documents from a person purporting to be a debt collector located elsewhere, and the transmittal of those documents is claimed to have violated the [FDCPA], suits may be brought where the debtor ... receive[s] the communications. Otherwise, one could invoke the protection of distance and send violative letters with relative impunity, at least so far as less well-funded parties are concerned.”
    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.