green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
14.3 score
“e conclude that the statutory definition of atds is not limited to devices with the capacity to call numbers produced by a 'random or sequential number generator' but also includes devices with the capacity to dial stored numbers automatically.”
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Pederson v. Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.
e conclude that the statutory definition of atds is not limited to devices with the capacity to call numbers produced by a 'random or sequential number generator' but also includes devices with the capacity to dial stored numbers automatically.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Pederson v. Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.
e conclude that the statutory definition of atds is not limited to devices with the capacity to call numbers produced by a 'random or sequential number generator' but also includes devices with the capacity to dial stored numbers automatically.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Pascal v. Arms
in a series of rulings, from 2003 to 2015, the fcc 9 determined that predictive dialers and other new technology qualified as an atds, even if they 10 did not generally generate or store random or sequential numbers.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Abel Fabian-Baltazar
See Fabian-Baltazar v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 1289, 1289 (2019).
Abel Heriberto FABIAN-BALTAZAR
v.
UNITED STATES.
v.
UNITED STATES.
No. 17–9044..
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 4, 2019.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
Citer courts: D. Minnesota (2) · N.D. California (1)
On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for further consideration in light of Garza v. Idaho, 586 U.S. ----, 139 S.Ct. 738, --- L.Ed.2d ---- (2019).