United States v. John’s Empirical Analysis
597 F.3d 263 · 2010
Citation profile
54 federal appellate · 5 district · 8 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1681 · 18 U.S.C. § 1029 · 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 371
Relies on Gall v. United States · United States v. Olano · Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Kumho Tire Company, Ltd., et al. v. Patrick Carmichael, Etc., et al. · Rita 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 156 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Whoever— (2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains— (A) information contained in a financial record of a financial institution, or of a card issuer as defined in section 1602(n) of title 15, or contained in a file of a consumer reporting agency on a consumer, as such terms are defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.); ... or (C) information from any protected computer; ... shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In certain cases, the participants may have completed (or have been about to complete but for apprehension or interruption) all of the acts necessary for the successful completion of part, but not all, of the intended offense. In such cases, the offense level for the count (or group of closely related multiple counts) is whichever of the following is greater: the offense level for the intended offense minus 3 levels (under § 2Xl.l(b)(l), (b)(2), or (b)(3)(A)), or the offense level for the part of the offense for which the necessary acts were completed (or about to be completed but for apprehension or interruption). For example, where the intended offense was the theft of $ 800,-000 but the participants completed (or were about to complete) only the acts necessary to steal $80,000, the offense level is the offense level for the theft of $800,000 minus 3 levels, or the offense level for the theft of $30,000, whichever is greater.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[njothing in the CFAA suggests that a defendant’s liability for accessing a computer without authorization turns on whether the defendant breached a state law duty of loyalty to an employer. If the employer has not rescinded the defendant’s right to use the computer, the defendant would have no reason to know that making personal use of the compa.ny computer in breach of a state law fiduciary duty to an employer would constitute a .criminal violation of the CFAA. It would be improper to interpret a criminal statute in such an unexpected manner.”
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.