72 F. Supp. 2d 791 - Cafarelli v. Yancy’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2510 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 47 U.S.C. § 605
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Bush · Tyler v. Berodt · Edwards v. State Farm Insurance
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]ccording to the first clause of § 605, acts 'authorized' by the Wiretap Act are not prohibited by § 605[,and] that the introductory clauseapplies to all the subsequent parts of § 605, rather than to the first sentence alone.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the effect of 18 U.S.C. § 2511 and related statutes, regulations, and case law on the potential liability of Defendant in this case,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and that, . . . the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter.”
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.