Bey v. Shapiro Brown & Alt, LLP’s Empirical Analysis
2014
Citation profile
3 district · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1692 (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 · Haines v. Kerner · Papasan v. Allain · Jones v. Bock
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]hat Plaintiff characterizes as subsequent violations are better viewed as communications regarding the first violation, not as discrete and separate violations. Because the alleged violation occurred the first time that Defendants threatened to collect the debt that Plaintiff believed they lacked the right to collect, the statute of limitations began to run at that time with regard to related communications.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the limitations period for FDCPA claims begins from the date of the first violation, and subsequent violations of the same type do not restart the limitations period.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“statute of limitations is not reset by each communication where ... the subsequent communications are continued efforts to collect the same debt[.]”
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.