660 So. 2d 1360 - State v. Rivers’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently August 2017
1 federal appellate · 5 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2516 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986)
Relies on Barrett v. United States · Spring Garden Civic Ass'n v. Zoning Hearing Board of Adjustment of the City of Philadelphia · United States v. Pacheco · People v. Shapiro · 432 Pa. Super. 167 - Commonwealth v. Birdseye
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“934.07. Authorization for interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications The Governor, the Attorney General, the statewide prosecutor, or any state attorney may authorize an application to a judge of competent jurisdiction for, and such judge may grant in conformity with ss. 934.03-934.09 an order authorizing or approving the interception of, wire, oral, or electronic communications by the Department of Law Enforcement or any law enforcement agency as defined in s. 934.02 having responsibility for the investigation of the offense as to which the application is made when such interception may provide or has provided evidence of the commission of the offense of murder, kidnaping, arson, gambling, robbery, burglary, theft, dealing in stolen property, prostitution, criminal usury, bribery, or extortion; any felony violation of ss. 790.161-790.166, inclusive; any violation of chapter 893; any violation of the provisions of the Florida Anti-Fencing Act; any violation of chapter 895 [RICO]; any violation of chapter 896; any violation of chapter 815; any violation of chapter 847; any violation of s. 827.071; any violation of s. 944.40; or any conspiracy or solicitation to commit any violation of the laws of this state relating to the crimes specifically enumerated above.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“and explained as follows: Under the statutory construction rule of ejusdem generis, the general category of other crimes”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[a]dditional offenses discovered during the course of a proper intercept may be prosecuted regardless of the nature of the offense or the prescribed punishment,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.