332 F. Supp. 2d 715 - DirecTV, Inc. v. DeCroce’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 4 district ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2510 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2512 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2520 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 47 U.S.C. § 605
Relies on Whalen v. Roe · Bartnicki v. Vopper · Directv, Inc. v. Brown · Paul Q v. Verniero · Fultz v. Gilliam
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“No person not being authorized by the sender shall intercept any radio communication and divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such intercepted communication to any person. No person not being entitled thereto shall receive or assist in receiving any interstate or foreign communication by radio and use such communication (or any information therein contained) for his own benefit or for the benefit of another not entitled thereto.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Except as authorized by chapter 119, Title 18, no person receiving, assisting in receiving, transmitting, or assisting in transmitting, any interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio shall divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning thereof, except through authorized channels of transmission or reception, ...”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“any person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or intentionally used in violation of”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. DIRECTV Inc. v. Pepe
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.