DIRECTV Inc. v. Seijas’s Empirical Analysis
508 F.3d 123 · 2007
Citation profile
15 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably Dique v. New Jersey State Police (2010), Chambers v. School District of Philadelphia Board of Education (2009)
15 federal appellate ·
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. § 2511 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2512 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 47 U.S.C. § 605
Relies on Belitskus v. Pizzingrilli · DIRECTV Inc. v. Pepe · CAT Internet Services, Inc. v. Providence Washington Insurance · Directv Incorporated v. Dennis Nicholas · DIRECTV, Inc. v. Bennett
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[N]o person receiving, assisting in receiving, transmitting, or assisting in transmitting, any interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio shall divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning thereof, except through authorized channels of transmission or reception. ... No person not being authorized by the sender shall intercept any radio communication and divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such intercepted communication to any person. No person not being entitled thereto shall receive or assist in receiving any interstate or foreign communication by radio and use such communication (or any information therein contained) for his own benefit or for the benefit of another not entitled thereto. No person having received any intercepted radio communication or having become acquainted with the contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such communication (or any part thereof) or use such communication (or any information therein contained) for his own benefit or for the benefit of another not entitled thereto.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is well established that arguments not raised before the District Court are waived on appeal.”
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.