Watkins v. Lm Berry & Company’s Empirical Analysis
704 F.2d 577 · 1983
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 3 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably Griggs-Ryan v. Smith (1990), Walker v. Darby (1990)
23 federal appellate · 3 district · 9 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. § 2511 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2520 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 47 U.S.C. § 605
Relies on Lehman Bros. v. Lilly · United States v. Harpel · United States v. Paul · Campiti v. Walonis · James v. Newspaper Agency Corp.
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[c]onsent under title III is not to be cavalierly implied.... [K]nowledge of the capability of monitoring alone cannot be considered implied consent.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We hold that a personal call may not be intercepted in the ordinary course of business under the exemption in section 2510(5)(a)(i), except to the extent necessary to guard against unauthorized use of the telephone or to determine whether a call is personal or not.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A]ny telephone or telegraph instrument, equipment or facility, or any component thereof, (i) furnished to the subscriber or user by a provider of wire or electronic communication service in the ordinary course of its business and being used by the subscriber or user in the ordinary course of its business or furnished by such subscriber or user for connection to the facilities of such service and used in the ordinary course of its business....”
3 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.