Glazner v. Glazner’s Empirical Analysis
347 F.3d 1212 · 2003
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently March 2020 · most notably Morrow v. Balaski (2013), Nunez-Reyes v. Holder (2011)
12 federal appellate · 5 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. § 2520 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 28 U.S.C. § 1367
Relies on Bonner v. City of Prichard · Landgraf v. USI Film Products · Griffith v. Kentucky · United States v. Turkette · Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“First, the decision to be applied nonret-roactively must establish a new principle of law, either by overruling clear past precedent ... or by deciding an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed[.] Second, [a court] must weigh the merits and demerits in each case by looking to the prior history of the rule in question, its purpose and effect, and whether retrospective operation will further or retard its operation. Finally, [a court must] weigh [ ] the inequity imposed by retroactive application, for where a decision ... could produce substantial inequitable results if applied retroactively, there is ample basis in our cases for avoiding the “injustice or hardship” by a holding of nonretroactivity.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“a prior judicial ruling should come to be seen so clearly as error that its enforcement was for that very reason doomed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Dommer v. Dommer“(1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who—”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.