37 F. Supp. 2d 495 - Peavy v. Harman’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently April 2023
2 federal appellate ·
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) · 18 U.S.C. § 2520 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 28 U.S.C. § 636 · 47 U.S.C. § 605
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Katz v. United States · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1) the information used or disclosed came from an intercepted communication, and 2) sufficient facts concerning the circumstances of the interception such that the defendant could, with presumed knowledge of the law, determine that the interception was prohibited in light of [the Act]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Carver Dan Peavy“the sensitivity and significance of the interests presented in clashes between First Amendment and privacy rights counsel relying on limited principles that sweep no more broadly than the appropriate context of the instant case”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Carver Dan Peavy“A party to a communication may sue a person who ... uses or divulges information that he knows or reasonably should know was obtained by interception of the communication”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Carver Dan Peavy
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.