Graziano v. Harrison’s Empirical Analysis
950 F.2d 107 · 1991
Citation profile
63 federal appellate · 25 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 211 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2020 · most notably Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P. (2003), Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich, L.P.A. (2010)
63 federal appellate · 25 district · 8 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. § 1692G (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act)
Relies on Hensley v. Eckerhart · Texas State Teachers Ass'n v. Garland Independent School District · Baker v. G. C. Services Corp. · Swanson v. Southern Oregon Credit Service, 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 211 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the amount of the debt; (2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed; (3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector; (4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; and (5) a statement that, upon the consumer’s written request within the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor.”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]n the instance of a single, trivial, and unintentional violation of the Act, it is within the court's discretion to decline to award statutory damages at all.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]e are of the view that, given the entire structure of section 1692g, subsection (a)(3) must be read to require that a dispute, to be effective, must be in writ- ' ing. Subsection (a)(3) states that unless the debtor disputes the debt within thirty days of receipt of notice, the debt collector will assume the debt to be valid. Subsection (a)(4) states that if the debtor disputes the debt in writing within thirty days, the debt collector must obtain verification of the debt and must send the debtor a copy of the verification. Subsection (a)(5) states that, if the debtor makes a written request, the debt collector must provide the name and address of the original creditor. Subsection (b) states that if the debtor disputes the debt in writing within thirty days, the debt collector must cease collection efforts until the debt collector has verified the debt. Adopting [a strict literal] reading of the statute would thus create a situation in which, upon the debtor’s non-written dispute, the debt collector would be without any statutory ground for assuming that the debt was valid, but nevertheless would not be required to verify the debt or to advise the debtor of the identity of the original creditor and would be permitted to continue debt collection efforts. We see no reason to attribute to Congress an intent to create so incoherent a system. We also note that there are strong reasons to prefer that a dispute of a debt collection be in writing: a writing creates a lasting recor”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Guzman v. Hovg, LLC · In Re Sanchez
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.