United States v. Councilman’s Empirical Analysis
418 F.3d 67 · 2005
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 14 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably National Organization for Marriage v. McKee (2011), United States v. Roberson (2006)
32 federal appellate · 14 district · 4 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
Relies on Connally v. General Construction Co. · Russello v. United States · United States v. Vonn · Field v. Mans · United States v. Lanier
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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Offense. — Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section whoever;— (1) intentionally accesses without authorization a facility through which an electronic communication service is provided and thereby obtains, alters, or prevents authorized access to a wire or electronic communication while it is in electronic storage in such system shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) of this section.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If the addition of the electronic storage clause to the definition of “wire communication” was intended to remove electronic communications from the scope of the Wiretap Act for the brief instants during which they are in temporary storage en route to their destinations— which, as it turns out, are often the points where it is technologically easiest to intercept those communications — neither of the Senate co-sponsors saw fit to mention this to their colleagues, and no one, evidently, remarked upon it. No document or legislator ever suggested that the addition of the electronic storage clause to the definition of “wire communication” would take messages in electronic storage out of the definition of “electronic communication.” Indeed, we doubt that Congress contemplated the existential oddity that Councilman’s interpretation creates: messages briefly cease to be electronic communications for very short intervals, and then suddenly become electronic communications again.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] statute is unconstitutionally vague only if it `prohibits . . . an act in terms so uncertain that persons of average intelligence would have no choice but to guess at its meaning and modes of application.'”
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.