Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 160 F.3d 343 - Nix v. J O'Malley

Nix v. J O'Malley’s Empirical Analysis

160 F.3d 343 · 1998

Citation profile

41
cited by 41 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
January 2019
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 41 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2019 · most notably Bartnicki v. Vopper (2001), United Kingdom v. United States (2001)

17 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions

270199820002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation · Gelbard v. United States · Weissbrodt v. White Mountain Apache Tribe of Arizona · Doe v. McMillan · Nebraska v. Wyoming

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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “must show that the defendants knew “1) [that] the information used or disclosed came from an intercepted communication, and 2) sufficient facts concerning the circumstances of the interception such that the defendants] could, with presumed knowledge of the law, determine that the interception was prohibited in light of [the ECPA].””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “To deny defendants’ counsel any possibility of investigating or rebutting the allegations on which [a] claim for punitive damages is based, or of discussing the contents of the tapes with their clients in the course of preparing a defense of [a] lawsuit, would be to convert the allegations of the complaint into a judgment.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.