Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 373 F.3d 197 - United States v. Councilman

United States v. Councilman’s Empirical Analysis

373 F.3d 197 · 2004

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
1
states following
March 2014
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on American Tobacco Co. v. Patterson · Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Jacobson · Gelbard v. United States · Clay v. United States · Holloway 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Defendant moved to dismiss the indictment for failure to state an offense under the Wiretap Act, as the e-mail interceptions at issue were in “electronic storage,” as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2510 (17), and could not be intercepted as a matter of law. The district court did not initially grant the motion to dismiss but, upon further briefing by the parties, granted the motion and dismissed Count One. The district court found that the e-mails were in electronic storage and that, therefore, the Wiretap Act could not be violated because the requisite “interception” was lacking.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “As used in this chapter— (4) “intercept” means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device. (12) “electronic communication” means any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds; data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photooptical system that affects interstate or foreign commerce, but does not include— (A) any wire or oral communication; (B) any communication made through a tone-only paging device; (C) any communication from a tracking device (as defined in section 3117 of this title); or (D) electronic funds transfer information stored by a financial institution in a communications system used for the electronic storage and transfer of funds.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The Wiretap Act’s purpose was, and continues to be, to protect the privacy of communications. We believe that the language of the statute makes clear that Congress meant to give lesser protection to electronic communications than wire and oral communications. Moreover, at this juncture, much of the protection may have been eviscerated by the realities of modern technology. We observe, as most courts have, that the language may be out of step with the technological realities of computer crimes. However, it is not the province of this court to graft meaning onto the statute where Congress has spoken plainly.”
    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.