Smith v. Wunker’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently March 2014
7 federal appellate · 2 district · 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. § 2510 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2515 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986)
Relies on Lopez v. United States · Rathbun v. United States
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"It is not unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire or oral communication when such person is a party to the communication or when one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal act." Section 934.03(2)(d).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'intercept' means the aural acquisition of the contents of any wire or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The words "aural acquisition" literally translated mean to come into possession through the sense of hearing... . We conclude the recording of a private conversation by a party to it and its subsequent disclosure does not violate 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (2)(d) or any other section... . ... The means of "aural acquisition" in this case is the telephone itself... . We note that the defendant as a party to the conversation could have repeated it verbatim without the use of a recording device and that would not come within the purview of 18 U.S.C. § 2515 .”
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.