Griffith v. Consumer Portfolio Serv., Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that the FCC’s final orders bind district courts
• focusing on whether the defendant’s device was an ATDS by looking at whether it automatically dialed numbers from a stored database and then routed those calls to the defendant’s representatives
• rejecting argument “that the TCPA only applies to telemarketing, not debt collection”
• “As we understand these terms, . . . ‘sequential number generation’ means (for example) (111) 111–1111, (111) 111–1112, and so on.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Toney v. Quality Resources, Inc.
  N.D. Illinois· 2014-12-01· cited 34×
• Gragg v. Orange Cab Co.
  W.D. Washington· 2014-02-07· cited 15×
• Smith v. Securus Technologies, Inc.
  D. Minnesota· 2015-08-04· cited 8×
• Augustin v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc.
  M.D. Florida· 2012-08-07· cited 7×
• Moore v. Dish Network L.L.C.
  N.D. West Virginia· 2014-10-15· cited 5×
• Nelson v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc.
  W.D. Wisconsin· 2013-03-08· cited 2×

Cites

7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
  Supreme Court· 1986-06-25· cited 135,235×
• Satterfield v. Simon & Schuster, Inc.
  Ninth Circuit· 2009-06-19· cited 244×
• Carl R. Pitasi v. Gartner Group, Incorporated
  Seventh Circuit· 1999-07-23· cited 93×
• Talanda v. KFC National Management Co.
  Seventh Circuit· 1998-04-07· cited 90×
• CE Design, Ltd. v. PRISM BUSINESS MEDIA, INC.
  Seventh Circuit· 2010-05-27· cited 84×
• McGrath v. Gillis
  Seventh Circuit· 1995-01-06· cited 52×
• Andrew Bourne v. Marty Gilman, Incorporated, Doing Business as Gilman Gear
  Seventh Circuit· 2006-06-20· cited 25×