Simmons v. Miller’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
5 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently May 2016
5 district · 1 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. § 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. § 1692G (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1692K (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1367
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Estate J Bosch Second National Bank of New Haven · Nebraska v. Wyoming
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“First, neither the Indiana Legislature nor the Indiana Supreme Court have pronounced that the two-year statute of limitations is the law of Indiana; therefore, the suit in fact may not have been time-barred. Second, even if the two-year statute of limitations was the law in Indiana, Defendants properly could have asserted a good-faith basis to change that law. Third, even if the two-year statute of limitations applied, Defendants could have sought to amend the suit to proceed only on the underlying substantive offense without seeking treble damages. They could have likewise voluntarily dismissed the suit and refiled on the underlying insufficiently funded check only. In either event, it would still be a debt-collection suit, and it would be undisputed that it was not time-barred; thus, the FDCPA would not even be implicated. Merely filing suit to collect the debt in this case, therefore, does not raise the concerns that the FDCPA seeks to guard against.”
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.