48 Va. App. 673 - Jaynes v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
4 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 7701 (§ 2 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003) · 15 U.S.C. § 7707 (§ 8 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003)
Relies on Broadrick v. Oklahoma · Grayned v. City of Rockford · Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. · Kolender v. Lawson · Screws 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“statute proscribes intentional falsity as a machination to make massive, uncompensated use of the private property of an ISP. Therefore, the statute cannot be overbroad because no protected speech whatsoever falls within its purview.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Jaynes v. Com.“electronic mail transmission information.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Jaynes v. Com.
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.