V Cable, Inc. v. Guercio’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 201 (Bank Bribery Amendments) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 47 U.S.C. § 415 · 47 U.S.C. § 553 · 47 U.S.C. § 605
Relies on Cullen v. Margiotta · United States v. Lieberman · Merchant v. Levy · 980 F. Supp. 107 - Cablevision Systems New York City Corp. v. Lokshin · 876 F. Supp. 415 - Cablevision Systems Corp. v. Muneyyirci
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A perusal of the statutes underlying the present action indicates that it is not a crime, nor a basis for a civil claim, for an individual to purchase or possess pirate descrambling devices, even if it appears that possession is with the intent to distribute.... Cablevision concedes that it has no direct evidence that defendant either used or distributed any of the items purchased from either Global or J.E.S. Moreover, it has offered no evidence, such as unexplained bank deposits in amounts suggesting he was selling de-scramblers, or other circumstantial evidence of sale.”
7 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.