Mustafa v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
115 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 115 later decisions — most recently November 2018 · most notably Harris v. State (1993), Jones v. State (1994)
115 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. § 2511 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2515 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2516 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986)
Relies on Missouri v. Continential Insurance Cos. · Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council · Unimet Corp. v. United Steelworkers · Griffin v. United States · United States v. Kahn
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 115 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““intercept ... a wire, oral, or electronic 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.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Perry v. Maryland · Perry v. State“(c) Issuance of order. — , (1) Upon the application a judge may enter an ex parte order, as requested or as modified, authorizing interception of wire, oral or electronic communications within the territorial'jurisdiction permitted under paragraph (c)(2) or (3) of this section,,... ... (2) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(3) of this section, an ex parte order issued under paragraph (c)(1) of this section may authorize the interception of wire, oral or electronic communications only within the territorial jurisdiction of the court in which the application was filed. (3) If an application for an ex parte order is made by the Attorney General or other designee, an order issued under paragraph (c)(1) of this section may authorize the interception of communications sent or received by a mobile telephone anywhere within the State so as(to permit the interception of the communications regardless of whether the mobile telephone is physically located within the jurisdiction of the court in which the application was filed at the time of the interception; .however, the application must allege that the offense being investigated’ may transpire in the jurisdiction of the court in which the application is filed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Any investigative or law enforcement officer ... who has lawfully received any information concerning a wire, oral or electronic communication or evidence lawfully derived therefrom, which would have been lawful for a law enforcement officer of this State ... to receive, may disclose the contents of that communication or the derivative evidence while giving testimony ....”
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.