Anonymous v. Anonymous’s Empirical Analysis
558 F.2d 677 · 1977
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 3 district · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 93 later decisions — most recently April 2013 · most notably 2 Cal. 4th 1088 - People v. Otto (1992), 477 F. Supp. 463 - Kratz v. Kratz (1979)
30 federal appellate · 3 district · 24 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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) · 18 U.S.C. § 2520 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986)
Relies on Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Barbour · United States v. Jones · Beverly Camp Simpson v. John G. Simpson, III · United States v. Harpel
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 93 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(5) “electronic, mechanical, or other device” means any device or apparatus which can be used to intercept a wire, oral or electronic communication other than— (a) any telephone or telegraph instrument, equipment or facility, or any component thereof, (i) furnished to the subscriber or user by a provider of wire or electronic communication service in the ordinary course of its business and being used by the subscriber or user in the ordinary course of its business....”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Platt v. Platt · Campbell v. Price“I take it nobody wants to make it a crime for a father to listen in on his teenage daughter or some such related problem”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who— (a) willfully intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication; (b) willfully uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication ... (c) willfully discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire or oral communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire or oral communication violation of this subsection; or (d) willfully uses, or endeavors to use, the contents of any wire or oral communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire or oral communication in violation of this subsection; ... shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five (5) years, or both.”
5 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.