Flaherty Et Al. v. Arkansas’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 1 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 1997 · most notably State v. Thomas (1980), United States v. Campagnuolo (1979)
34 federal appellate · 1 district · 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. § 2510 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2516 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986)
Relies on Hoffa v. United States · United States v. White · Lopez v. United States · Lewis v. United States · Nardone 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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The principle underlying [that rule] is that when one reveals information to an individual, one takes the risk that one's confidence in that individual is misplaced.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“That an “interception” can occur without overhearing a conversation being carried between two other persons is made clear by § 2511(2)(c) of Title III. This section comprehends that a party to a communication can ‘intercept’ it within the meaning of the statute; it provides, however, that such interception is not unlawful within the meaning of Title III: “It shall not be unlawful under this chapter, for a person acting under color of law to intercept a wire or oral communication, where such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person acting under color of law to intercept a wire or oral communication, where such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.