Campbell v. Price’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently December 2020
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 15 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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. § 2511 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation · United States v. Giordano
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“that there may be limited instances where a parent may give vicarious consent on behalf of a minor child to the taping of telephone conversations where that parent has a good faith basis that is objectively reasonable for believing that the minor child is being abused, threatened, or intimidated by the other parent.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“clearly stand for the proposition that a defendant's good faith concern for his minor child's best interests, may, without liability under Title III, empower the parent to intercept the child's conversations with the non-custodial parent.”
1 later decision 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.