§Why CasetextPricing

Osorio v. State Farm Bank, F.S.B.

MOTION for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's TCPA Claim

21 Cited authorities

  1. Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Res. Def. Council

    467 U.S. 837 (1984)   Cited 16,006 times   500 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts "must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress"

  2. Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms

    561 U.S. 139 (2010)   Cited 1,135 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiffs, alfalfa farmers, had standing based on a causal chain, though plaintiffs did not identify particular alfalfa plants that had been, or would necessarily be, pollinated by bees who carried the genetically engineered gene at issue

  3. Mohasco Corp. v. Silver

    447 U.S. 807 (1980)   Cited 988 times
    Holding that an agency’s " ‘interpretation’ of a statute cannot supersede the language chosen by Congress"

  4. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System v. Dimension Financial Corp.

    474 U.S. 361 (1986)   Cited 292 times
    Holding that “[t]he ‘plain purpose’ of legislation ... is determined in the first instance with reference to the plain language of the statute itself” and explaining that “[i]nvocation of the ‘plain purpose’ of legislation at the expense of the terms of the statute itself takes no account of the processes of compromise and, in the end, prevents the effectuation of congressional intent”

  5. Meadows v. Franklin Collection Serv

    414 F. App'x 230 (11th Cir. 2011)   Cited 95 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the defendant's calls constituted harassment even though the plaintiff never answered them

  6. US Fax Law Center, Inc. v. iHire, Inc.

    476 F.3d 1112 (10th Cir. 2007)   Cited 59 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding federal courts have diversity jurisdiction over TCPA claims

  7. Gutierrez v. Barclays Group

    CASE NO. 10cv1012 DMS (BGS), [Docket No. 22] (S.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2011)   Cited 42 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding a verbal revocation of consent to receive debt collection calls to a wireless number is sufficient under the TCPA

  8. Lozano v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.

    702 F. Supp. 2d 999 (N.D. Ill. 2010)   Cited 42 times
    Holding that the plaintiff sufficiently stated a claim for violation of the TCPA by alleging that the defendant used an ATDS

  9. Eclipse Mfg. Co. v. M M Rental Center, Inc.

    521 F. Supp. 2d 739 (N.D. Ill. 2007)   Cited 37 times
    Noting that courts are inclined to find that claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence in the interest of judicial economy

  10. Leyse v. Bank of America, National Association

    09 Civ. 7654 (JGK) (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 14, 2010)   Cited 22 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that only the intended recipient of a telemarketing call could pursue TCPA claim

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 328,220 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  12. Section 227 - Restrictions on use of telephone equipment

    47 U.S.C. § 227   Cited 5,646 times   733 Legal Analyses
    Granting exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts over actions brought by state attorney generals

  13. Section 2342 - Jurisdiction of court of appeals

    28 U.S.C. § 2342   Cited 1,067 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Granting courts of appeals jurisdiction to review "final orders of the Federal Communications Commission"