583 F. Supp. 158 - Ciminelli v. Cablevision’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently August 2006 · most notably International Cablevision, Inc. v. Sykes (1996), United States v. Norris (1996)
8 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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) · 47 U.S.C. § 605
Relies on Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios Inc · Kiefer-Stewart Co. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. · Fortner Enterprises, Inc. v. United States Steel Corp. · Lehigh Valley Cooperative Farmers, Inc. v. United States · Howard 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Existing section 605 of the Communications Act of 1934 includes a prohibition against the unauthorized reception of communications services. Nothing in [proposed § 553] is intended to affect the applicability of existing Section 605 to theft of cable service, or any other remedies available under existing law for theft of service.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“no person receiving, assisting in receiving, transmitting or assisting in transmitting, any interstate or foreign communication by wire or by radio shall divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning thereof, except through authorized channels of transmission or reception, (1) to any person other than the addressee ...”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The premium services offered by plaintiffs, such as HBO, are transmitted by interstate radio communications and then relayed to subscribers by means of coaxial cable. While the theft of services by way of unauthorized descramblers occurs at the subscriber’s home and not at the cable headend, the theft is nevertheless of an interstate radio transmission.”
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.