DirecTV, Inc. v. Neznak’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2520 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 47 U.S.C. § 605
Relies on Vermont Teddy Bear Co. v. 1-800 BEARGRAM Co. · Dorris v. Absher · Reynolds v. Spears · 294 F. Supp. 2d 1044 - DirecTV, Inc. v. Kaas
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he party aggrieved may recover an award of statutory damages for each violation of [§ 605(a) ] involved in the action in a sum of not less than $1,000 or more than $10,000, as the court considers just, and for each violation of [§ 605(e)(4) ] involved in the action an aggrieved party may recover statutory damages in a sum not less than $10,000, or more than $100,000, as the court considers just.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Congress intended in [§ 605(e)(4) ] to penalize manufacturers and distributors, not mere consumers of pirate access devices.”); DIRECTV, Inc. v. McDougall, No. Civ.A. SA-03CA-1165, 2004 WL 2580769 , at (W.D.Tex. Nov.12, 2004) (”
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.