Darlie Kee’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 82 later decisions — most recently July 2023 · most notably 351 N.J. Super. 577 - Hornberger v. American Broadcasting Cos., Inc. (2002), Terry Zaffuto
4 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
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Katz v. United States · Hoffa v. United States · Smith v. Maryland
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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If the moving party fails to meet [its] initial burden, the motion must be denied, regardless of the nonmovant's response.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“[Plaintiffs] failed to present evidence demonstrating any affirmative steps taken to preserve their privacy. While it is apparent from their affidavits that they did not expect government agents surreptitiously to be recording their pray ers, they also were aware that the service was being conducted in an outdoor setting. [Plaintiffs] fail to allege that they took any steps to ensure that unwanted individuals were excluded or that they did anything to preserve the private nature of the service. They point to no reasonable safeguards or common-sense precautions taken to preserve their expectation of privacy.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“18 U.S.C. § 2510 (2) protects oral communications "uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation.” 18 U.S.C. § 2510 (2). The legislative history of this section demonstrates that Congress intended this definition of oral communication to parallel the reasonable expectation of privacy test set out in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 , 88 S.Ct. 507 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967). See S.Rep. No. 90-1097 (1968), reprinted in 1968 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2112, 2178.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.