Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 172 SO2D 857 - Barber v. State

Barber v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1965

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
December 1988
most recently cited

8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 1988

8 state decisions

60196519701980decided

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

Applies 47 U.S.C. § 605

Relies on Jones v. United States · Boyd v. United States · Nardone v. United States · Olmstead v. United States · McDonald v. United States

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

  1. ““We have considered the fact that the telephone conversation here involved was recorded with the aid of a mechanical device that was attached by means of a suction cup to the receiver of Mrs. Hartley’s telephone. There seems to be no question but that the deputy sheriff would have been qualified to testify as to the conversation had he directly listened in with Mrs. Hartley. To exclude it on the ground that it was tape recorded would, under the circumstances of this case, amount to straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““The unauthorized procurement of evidence by aid of a mechanical device used to intercept a telephone or telegraph communication is commonly referred to as ‘wire tapping’ and if objected to, is not admissible. However, it is consistently held to be admissible if procured with the consent of one or more of the conversants, even though the person adversely affected had no knowledge of the interception.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.