241 F. Supp. 2d 867 - Daniel v. Cantrell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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.

1. “no person shall attempt to submit " personal information into evidence. Congress, however, did not use this language. Therefore, it is clear that section (d) is a rule of evidence and cannot be the basis for a private cause of action. 17 Because the following defendants do not fit into the definition of a VTSP necessary for liability under section (b) and because section (d) is not the basis for a private cause of action, we affirm the district court in its dismissal of all claims against Ellie M. Cantrell, Michael Cantrell, Lee Ann Stabler, Roger E. Jenne, Jerry N. Estes, Joseph V. Hoffer, Stephen D. Crump, Chuck Kimbrell and Tony Alvarez. 2. Statute of Limitations 18 We next turn to the issue whether the district court's grant of summary judgment to the defendants on the statute of limitations issue was erroneous. Daniel argues that the district court erred in granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment as to whether the statute of limitations period prescribed by the Act had expired before he filed his complaint with the district court on June 10, 2002. 19 In relevant part, the Act authorizes a civil action by a litigant, except that "no action may be brought under this subsection unless such action is begun within 2 years from the date of the act complained of or the date of discovery.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Daniel v. Cantrell

2. “The Court finds that the plaintiff had knowledge of the alleged violation on March 27, 2000, the date he filed the motion to suppress. To maintain his action, the plaintiff was required to file his action on or before March 27, 2002. Because he filed on June 17, 2002, this action against the named video service providers is barred by the statute of limitations.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Daniel v. Cantrell

3. “[t]he decision whether or not to receive documents or testimony is one that will be made by the person presiding over the relevant proceeding.... A private individual is not in a position to `receive' video records into evidence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Daniel v. Cantrell