4 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 23 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Sarah Goldstein v. Hutton, Ingram, Yuzek, Gainen, Carroll & Bertolotti.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Sarah Goldstein v. Hutton, Ingram, Yuzek, Gainen, Carroll & Bertolotti Anchor | green | “eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors, to insure that those debt collectors who refrain from using abusive debt collection practices are not competitively disadvantaged, and to promote consistent state action to protect consumers against debt collection …” | 6 |
| 2 | Easterling v. Collecto, Inc. | green | “pays no attention to the circumstances of the particular debtor in question.” | 6 |
| 3 | Vincent v. The Money Store | green | “remedial in nature, so its terms must be construed in a liberal fashion if the underlying congressional purpose is to be effectuated.” | 6 |
| 4 | Avila v. Riexinger & Associates, LLC | green | “if it is 'open to more than one reasonable interpretation, at least one of which is inaccurate.” | 5 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.