Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 420 F.3d 532 - DIRECTV, Inc. v. Robson

DIRECTV, Inc. v. Robson’s Empirical Analysis

420 F.3d 532 · 2005

Citation profile

124
cited by 124 later decisions
March 2019
most recently cited

14 federal appellate · 1 district ·

Relationships

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2512 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2520 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 47 U.S.C. § 605

Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co. · Michalic v. Cleveland Tankers, Inc. · Forsyth v. Barr

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 124 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “An issue is material if its resolution could affect the outcome of the action.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Any person who manufactures, assembles, modifies, imports, exports, sells, or distributes any electronic, mechanical, or other device or equipment, knowing or having reason to know that the device or equipment is primarily of assistance in the unauthorized decryption of satellite cable programming, or direct-to-home satellite services, or is intended for any other activity prohibited by [§ 605(a)] shall be fined not more than $500,000 for each violation, or imprisoned for not more than 5 years for each violation, or both. 16”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[T]he term "any person aggrieved” shall include any person with proprietary rights in the intercepted communication by wire or radio, including wholesale or retail distributors of satellite cable programming, and, in the case of a violation of [§ 605(e)(4)], shall also include any person engaged in the lawful manufacture, distribution, or sale of equipment necessary to authorize or receive satellite cable programming.”
    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.