Bubis v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
384 F.2d 643 · 1967
Citation profile
41 federal appellate · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2010 · most notably Hanna v. United States (1969), United States v. Hearst (1977)
41 federal appellate · 11 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. § 1084 · 47 U.S.C. § 605
Relies on Nardone v. United States · Nardone v. United States · Rathbun v. United States · Benanti 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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(t)o sanction such practices on the part of the telephone company would tend to emasculate the protection of privacy Section 605 was intended to protect.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Except as authorized by chapter 119, Title 18, no person receiving, assisting in receiving, transmitting, or assisting in transmitting, any interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio shall divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning thereof, except through authorized channels of transmission or reception . . . .” (Emphasis added.) 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (1) provides for criminal penalties for any person who intercepts or discloses wire communications. However, § 2511(2) (a) (i) permits the telephone company to intercept and disclose wire communications in order to protect its property. “It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for an officer, employee, or agent of any communication common carrier, whose facilities are used in the transmission of a wire communication, to intercept, disclose, or use that communication in the normal course of his employment while engaged in any activity which is a necessary incident to the rendition of his service or to the protection of the rights or property of the carrier of such communication . . . .””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Disclosure as well as interception [by the telephone company] is limited by the consent reasonably implied; that is, consent to such invasion of the subscriber’s privacy as is necessary to protect the telephone company’s property.” 7”
2 later decisions 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.