Jacobson v. Rose’s Empirical Analysis
592 F.2d 515 · 1978
Citation profile
49 federal appellate · 9 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 112 later decisions — most recently April 2023 · most notably Windsor v. The Tennessean (1983), Haynesworth v. Miller (1987)
49 federal appellate · 9 district · 8 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 Imbler v. Pachtman · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Pierson v. Ray · Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. · Kerr v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California
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 112 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"(1) Any person whose wire or oral communication was intercepted, disclosed or used in violation of ORS 133.724 or 133.737 shall have a civil cause of action against any person who wilfully intercepts, discloses or uses, or procures any other person to intercept, disclose or use such communication and shall be entitled to recover from any such person: (a) Actual damages but not less than damages computed at the rate of $100 a day for each day of violation or $1,000, whichever is greater; [and] (b) Punitive damages; * * *."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) good faith reliance on a court order or legislative authorization shall constitute a complete defense to any civil or criminal action brought under this chapter or under any other law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The act was passed to ‘clarify the confusion’ in the state of the law governing surveillance and wiretaps by law enforcement officials. See [S.Rep.No.1097, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in 1968 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 2112] at 2154. The prohibition on private wiretapping and surveillance appears to be an almost incidental extension, added because ‘virtually all concede that the use of wiretapping or electronic surveillance techniques by private unauthorized hands has little justification when communications are intercepted without the consent of one of the participants.’ Id. at 2156.””
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.