43 Md. App. 528 - Adams v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
2 district · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently August 2016
2 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. § 2510 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 47 U.S.C. § 605
Relies on Neil v. Biggers · Manson v. Brathwaite · Smith v. Maryland · Reamer v. Beall · Rathbun 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““As used in this subtitle, the following terms have the meanings indicated: (1) ‘Wire communication’ means any communication made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communications by the aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the point of origin and the point of reception furnished or operated by any person engaged as a common carrier in providing or operating such facilities for the transmission of communications; (2) ‘Oral communication’ means any conversation or words spoken to or by any person in private conversation; (3) ‘Intercept’ means the aural acquisition of the contents of any wire or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device; (4) ‘Electronic, mechanical, or other device’ means any device or apparatus which can be used to intercept a wire or oral communication____””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““[t]he opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness’ degree of attention, the accuracy of the witness’ prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and the length of time between the crime and the confrontation.” Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 [ 93 S.Ct. 375 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401 ] (1972).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Because the federal statute is identical to our own in the critical sections defining “intercept” and “electronic, mechanical, or other device” ... we may turn to the federal courts for guidance.”
1 later decision 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.