Shields v. Lefta, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions

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

1. “Any possible violation springs from the placing of cash in the dealer’s pocket under the category of amounts charged to others. But plaintiffs cannot be heard to complain that there was an additional TILA violation in the placement of the charges. That placement was authorized by the regulations, see 12 C.F.R. § 226 , App. H-3, absolving defendant ... on this point.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 910 F. Supp. 422 - Hernandez v. Vidmar Buick Co. · 932 F. Supp. 32 - Ritter v. Durand Chevrolet, Inc.

2. “For each transaction, the creditor shall disclose the following information as applicable: * * * * * (c) Itemization of amount financed. (1) A separate written itemization of the amount financed, including: * * * * * * (iii) Any amounts paid to other persons by the creditor on the consumer’s behalf. The creditor shall identify those persons.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 910 F. Supp. 422 - Hernandez v. Vidmar Buick Co.

3. “as long as it used the model form, it could put false information on the form and be immune from any TILA claim for its compliance, which neither makes sense nor follows from TILA and TILA caselaw. Plaintiffs claim that where the disclosure form lists amounts paid to a third party, the form is a misrepresentation. That states a claim.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 120 F. Supp. 2d 1271 - Campos v. Brooksbank