United States v. Burroughs’s Empirical Analysis
564 F.2d 1111 · 1977
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently October 2014 · most notably United States v. Mandel (1979), United States v. Duncan (1979)
20 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 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. § 2 · 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. § 3731
Relies on Younger v. Harris · United States v. Bass · United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co. · United States v. Wilson · Serfass 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In our view, this portion of the legislative history indicates that Congress intended subsection (l)(a) to overlap with subsection (l)(b) and that (l)(a) could be applied to persons other than those acting under color of state or federal law who intercepted oral communications. Congress expressed concern for the constitutionality of subsection (l)(a) in “some cases,” but it did not limit the subsection’s application merely to per sons acting under color of state or federal law. Thus the district court’s reading of § 2511(l)(a) as it applies to oral communications was overly restrictive. Undeniably, subsections (l)(b)(i)-(iv) are based upon the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce and require a specific showing of the effect upon interstate commerce. But because subsection (l)(a) does not specify any particular basis for jurisdiction, we are of the opinion that proof of any rational basis would be adequate. See Perez v. United States, 402 U.S. 146 , 91 S.Ct. 1357 , 28 L.Ed.2d 686 (1971). The essential element is that some basis for federal jurisdiction be established at trial.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“After a jury verdict of guilty, the court, upon motion of the defendants, granted a judgment of acquittal. The district court determined that there was a failure of proof of any state action or any action under color of state or federal law in the attempt to intercept the communications. Although no state action was alleged in the information, and the statute in question does not specifically require such state action, the trial court concluded that such an interpretation was necessary to preserve the constitutionality of the statute. United States v. Burroughs, 379 F.Supp. 736 (D.S.C.1974). The government filed a notice of appeal from the judgment of acquittal and thereafter the defendants moved that the appeal be dismissed. Concluding that the judgment of acquittal was not properly appealable by the government, we granted defendants’ motion and dismissed the appeal. United States v. Burroughs, 510 F.2d 967 (4 Cir.1975) (Table). Thereafter the government filed a petition for rehearing and, based upon a more recent decision of the Supreme Court in United States v. Wilson, 420 U.S. 332 , 95 S.Ct. 1013 , 43 L.Ed.2d 232 (1975), we held that the government could appeal the judgment; we then reinstated the appeal.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The interception of wire communications under § 2511(l)(a) and oral communications under § 2511(l)(b)(i)-(iv) specifically require a showing of an effect upon interstate commerce to establish a violation of the statute. However, the interception of oral communications under § 2511(l)(a) does not specify in statutory language any requirement of a federal nexus to establish a violation of the statute. Because of this absence of jurisdictional language in § 2511(l’)(a) as it pertains to oral communications, the dis- triet court interpreted this portion of the statute as applying only to persons acting under color of state or federal law.”
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.