United States v. Seidlitz’s Empirical Analysis
589 F.2d 152 · 1978
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 3 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently November 2012 · most notably United States v. Brooks (1992), United States v. Gallop (1988)
19 federal appellate · 3 district · 6 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
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Katz v. United States · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Sedillo 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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We find no merit in the defendant’s suggestion that, in the absence of either a statutory definition of the word “aural” or of legislative history to indicate that Congress even considered the relationship of Title III to computer systems, we should ignore the plain meaning of the term “aural” and should hold that, regardless of whether a device detects sound, its ability to interpret the substance of a transmission brings it within the restrictions of the statute. Canons of statutory construction require that we attribute to legislatively undefined words their commonly accepted meaning and that we give effect to what must be presumed to have been the purposeful inclusion in the legislation of a qualifying term such as “aural” which restricts the statute’s scope.”
1 later decision 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, any wire or oral communication; »)( * $ * * * shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2511(2)(c) provides that: (c) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person acting under color of law to intercept a wire or oral communication, where such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception. These exceptions do not apply to the issue discussed in Part I but are involved in the issue discussed in Part IV, infra.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.”
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.