Shaver v. Shaver’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently March 2017
8 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 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. § 2510 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2520 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986)
Relies on Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. · United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc. · Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States · California v. ARC America Corp. · Burrus
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) In general. — Except as provided in section 2511(2)(a)(ii), any person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or intentionally used in violation of this chapter may in a civil action recover from the person or entity which engaged in that violation such relief as may be appropriate. (b) Relief. — In an action under this section, appropriate relief includes— (1) such preliminary and other equitable or declaratory relief as may be appropriate; (2) damages under subsection (c) and punitive damages in appropriate cases; and (3) a reasonable attorney’s fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Absent a statutory statement to the contrary, it is not reasonable to expect Congress to enumerate in the statute every possible situation in which a lesser amount of damages would be appropriate. Instead, Congress apparently addressed this issue by inserting the word “may” to give federal district courts the discretion to either award the damages described by § 2520(c)(2) or not to award any damages under § 2520(c)(2).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The plain meaning of legislation should be conclusive, except in • the ‘rare cases [in which] the literal application of a statute will produce a result demonstrably at odds with the intention of its drafters.’ ” US v. Ron Pair Enterprises, 489 U.S. 235 , 109 S.Ct. 1026 , 103 L.Ed.2d 290 (1989) (citation omitted). “Where the words of a later statute differ from those of a previous one on the same or related subject, the Congress must have intended them to have different meaning.” Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Hodel, 851 F.2d 1439 (D.C.Cir.1988), ce rt. denied, 488 U.S. 1010 , 109 S.Ct. 795 , 102 L.Ed.2d 786 (1989).”
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.