Dorris v. Absher’s Empirical Analysis
179 F.3d 420 · 1999
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 93 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2024 · most notably Bartnicki v. Vopper (2001), United States v. Farrow (1999)
25 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 state decisions
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 18 U.S.C. § 2510 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2520 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc. · United States v. Turkette · Caminetti 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 93 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) The court should first determine the amount of actual damages to the plaintiff plus the profits derived by the violator, if any. See 18 U.S.C. § 2520 (c)(2)(A). (2) The court should next ascertain the number of days that the statute was violated, and multiply by $100. See 18 U.S.C. § 2520 (c)(2)(B). (3) The court should then tentatively award the plaintiff the greater of the above two amounts, unless each is less than $10,000, in which case $10,000 is to be the presumed award. See id. (4) Finally, the court should exercise its discretion to determine whether the plaintiff should receive any damages at all in the case before it. See 18 U.S.C. § 2520 (c)(2).”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In all cases of statutory construction, the starting point is the language employed by Congress.” Appleton v. First Nat’l Bank of Ohio, 62 F.3d 791, 801 (6th Cir.1995). Moreover, where “the statute’s language is plain, the sole function of the courts is to enforce it according to its terms.” United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc., 489 U.S. 235, 241 , 109 S.Ct. 1026 , 103 L.Ed.2d 290 (1989) (citation and internal punctuation omitted).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(2) In any [action under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2511 and 2512], the court may assess as damages whichever is the greater of - (A) the sum of the actual damages suffered by the plaintiff and any profits made by the violator as a result of the violation; or (B) statutory damages of whichever is the greater of $100 a day for each day of violation or $10,000.”
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.