Pine v. Rust’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 4 district · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently August 2016 · most notably St. Luke Evangelical Lutheran Church, Inc. v. Smith (1990), Kraft Power Corp. v. Merrill (2013)
2 federal appellate · 4 district · 18 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. § 2520 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986)
Relies on Riverbend Farms, Inc. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board · International Fidelity Insurance v. Wilson · Heller v. Silverbranch Construction Corp. · Leardi v. Brown · Commonwealth v. Vitello
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In addition to the actions which survive by the common law, the following shall survive:— (1) Actions under chapter two hundred and forty-seven [i.e., for replevin]; (2) Actions of tort (a) for assault, battery, imprisonment or other damage to the person; (b) for consequential damages arising out of injury to the person and consisting of expenses incurred by a husband, wife, parent or guardian for medical, nursing, hospital or surgical services in connection with or on account of such injury; (c) for goods taken or carried away or converted; or (d) for damage to real or personal property; and (3) Actions against sheriffs for the misconduct or negligence of themselves or their deputies.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[a]ny aggrieved person whose oral or wire communications were intercepted, disclosed or used except as permitted or authorized by this section or whose personal or property interests or privacy were violated by means of an intercep tion except as permitted or authorized by this section....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[a]lthough the privacy interests protected by the statute in question are real and significant, they are by their very nature lacking in clear definition and difficult to quantify,” that no actual damage had been sustained, and that accordingly, the action”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.