133 S. Ct. 2191 - Maracich v. Spears’s Empirical Analysis
2013
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 12 district · 11 state decisions
Appellate journey
reviewedMaracich v. Spears (from Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1512 · 18 U.S.C. § 2721 (§ 300002 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) · 18 U.S.C. § 2723 (§ 300002 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) · 49 U.S.C. § 31308
Relies on Younger v. Harris · Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. · New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Insurance · Bates v. State Bar of Arizona · Leocal v. Ashcroft
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 101 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the structure of the statute and its other provisions.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“after considering text, structure, history and purpose, there remains a grievous ambiguity or uncertainty in the statute such that the Court must simply guess as to what Congress intended.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If (b)(4) were read to permit disclosure of personal information whenever any connection between the protected information and a potential legal dispute could be shown, it would undermine in a substantial way the DPPA’s purpose of protecting an individual’s right to privacy in his or her motor vehicle records. An additional reason to hold that (b)(4) does not permit solicitation of clients is because the exception allows use of the most sensitive kind of information, including medical and disability history and Social Security numbers. To permit this highly personal information to be used in solicitation is so substantial an intrusion on privacy it must not be assumed, without language more clear and explicit, that Congress intended to exempt attorneys from DPPA liability in this regard.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.