International Science & Technology Institute, Incorporated v. Inacom Communications, Incorporated

How courts have described this case

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

• holding “that private actions under the TCPA may be permitted in some state courts and prohibited in others, as determined by the states, does not render the TCPA violative of the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause”
• discussing how the word “may” in the TCPA cannot be read to confer federal subject matter jurisdiction because permissive authorization extends only to courts of general jurisdiction
• finding significance in Congress' failure to refer to federal jurisdiction in S 227, as compared to the express grants of concurrent jurisdiction in other parts of the Communications Act
• Congress did not intend to ensure uniform availability of private right of action for TCPA violations
• “Because federal-question jurisdiction ultimately depends on an act of Congress, the scope of the district courts’ jurisdiction depends on that congressional intent manifested in [the] statute.”
• “although Congress created the private TCPA action, it was from the beginning a cause of action in the states’ interest”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).