Caro v. Weintraub’s Empirical Analysis
618 F.3d 94 · 2010
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2520 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986)
Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc. · Harris v. Mills · Triestman v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“that a cause of action under § 2511(2)(d) requires that the interceptor intend to commit a crime or tort independent of the act of recording itself”
2 later decisions 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.