966 F. Supp. 2d 925 - Holmes v. Electronic Document Processing, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
2013
Citation profile
1 state decisions
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. § 1692D (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1692E (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1692F (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1692K (Sherman Antitrust Act)
Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Fogerty Fantasy Inc · Heintz v. Jenkins · 37 Cal. 4th 1048 - Rusheen v. Cohen
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Motions to strike are generally disfavored and 'should not be granted unless the matter to be stricken clearly could have no possible bearing on the subject of the litigation ...'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Ultimately, whether to grant a motion to strike lies within the sound discretion of the district court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“not 'a single federal court has found Rosenthal Act claims to be barred by the litigation privilege'”
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.