Martinez v. Lewis’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 7 district · 30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently December 2021 · most notably Harris v. Kreutzer (2006), Hall v. Walter (1998)
4 federal appellate · 7 district · 30 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
Relies on Travelers Insurance Co. v. Savio · Hall v. Walter · Gerrity Oil & Gas Corp. v. Magness · Lotspeich v. Chance Vought Aircraft · Connes v. Molalla Transport System, 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) that the defendant engaged in an unfair or deceptive trade practice; (2) that the challenged' practice occurred in the course of defendant’s business, vocation, or occupation; (3) that it significantly impacts the public as actual or potential consumers of the defendant’s goods, services, or property; (4) that the plaintiff suffered injury in fact to a legally protected interest; and (5) that the challenged practice caused the plaintiffs injury.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the number of consumers directly affected by the challenged practice, (2) the relative sophistication and bargaining power of the consumers affected by the challenged practice, and (3) evidence that the challenged practice has previously impacted other consumers or has the significant potential to do so in the future,”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he purpose of the CCPA is to provide ‘consumers who are in a position of relative bargaining weakness with protection against a range of deceptive trade practices.’”
2 later decisions 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.