New York Tow & Recovery Board of Trade, Inc. v. City of New York

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that “the phrase ‘if otherwise permitted by the laws or rules of court of a State’ merely acknowledges the principle that states have the right to structure their own court systems and that state courts are not obliged to change their procedural rules to accommodate TCPA claims”
• adopting \acknowledgment\ approach and rejecting \opt-in\ approach on the bases of supremacy-clause considerations, the statute's framework, and its legislative history
• adopting “acknowledgment” approach and rejecting “opt-in” approach on the bases of supremacy-clause considerations, the statute’s framework, and its legislative history
• rejecting opt-in interpretation of identical language in section regulating telephone calls because \such an interpretation of the statute is inconsistent with established principles governing state court jurisdiction over claims based on Federal laws\
• “State courts are courts of general jurisdiction and are presumed to have jurisdiction over Federally created causes of action unless Congress dictates otherwise”
• “the TCPA is unusual in that it gives State courts exclusive jurisdiction over private rights of action and limits Federal court jurisdiction to civil actions to enforce the TCPA brought by State Attorneys General or the Federal Communications Commission”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).