94 F. Supp. 2d 1052 - Irwin v. Mascott’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
4 district ·
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1692 (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1692E (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1692K (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1692N (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act)
Relies on Cort v. Ash · Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Transport Workers Union · Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner · Somportex Ltd. v. Philadelphia Chewing Gum Corp. · Fox v. Citicorp Credit Services, 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It makes no sense to permit such a potentially prejudicial expansion of the case at the expense of [the plaintiffs], if the third-party plaintiffs do not have a valid theory of relief against the third-party defendants.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“This is distinguishable from defendants’ knowing that a specific act violated the statute and doing it anyway, which would show intent to violate the statute.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“consider whether the proposed third-party complaint alleges a cause of action for which relief may be granted.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.