Huff v. Spaw’s Empirical Analysis
794 F.3d 543 · 2015
Citation profile
6 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2510 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 47 U.S.C. § 605
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Katz v. United States · Minnesota v. Olson · Kyllo v. United States
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[p]urposely intercept[] . . . any wire, electronic or oral communication . . . .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“narrowly defined as a nonelectronic 'oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]o argue that [defendant] lacked the technical savvy or good sense to configure LimeWire to prevent access to his pornographic files is like saying that he did not know enough to close his drapes.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.