United States v. Rose’s Empirical Analysis
669 F.2d 23 · 1982
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 2510 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 21 U.S.C. § 952 · 47 U.S.C. § 605
Relies on Jones v. Nor-Tex Agencies, Inc. · Lee v. State of Florida · Federal Deposit Insurance v. First Empire Bank-New York · Long Beach Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Federal Home Loan Bank · United States v. Mendez-Rodriguez
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Congress did not explicitly recognize that the amendment [to 605(a)] would allow the interception and disclosure of radio communications previously protected, the legislative history states clearly that 'The regulation of the interception of wire or oral communications in the future is to be governed by the proposed new (Title III).' ” The court additionally stated that “the statutory mandate contained in 'except as authorized by (Title III)’ cannot be avoided.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“significantly diminished in scope [the protective shield of section 605] by incorporating the requirements of subjective and reasonable expectations of privacy”
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.