235 Md. App. 134 - Boston v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2017
Citation profile
2 state decisions
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 Breeding v. State · Fearnow v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. · State v. Simms · Fearnow v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. · Ruffin Hotel Corp. v. Gasper
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]t is lawful under this subtitle for a person to intercept a[n] ... oral ... communication where the person is a party to the communication and where all of the parties to the communication have given prior consent to the interception unless the 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 this State.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“as the proponent of the motion [to exclude the recording] it was [appellant's] burden to produce evidence to show that the Wiretap Act was violated and to persuade the court to so rule”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any ... oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.”
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.