Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

843 F.2d 110

Docket No. 944, Docket 87-7997.

Janecka v. Franklin

Second Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued March 30, 1988. Decided April 4, 1988.

Second Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1988-04-04

3 counsel of record

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2510 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986)

Relies on Anonymous v. Anonymous · Janecka v. Franklin

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1988-04-04

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently January 2005

7 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

80198819902000decided

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.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

David A. Goldstein, New York City, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Lawrence Farkash, New York City (Laufer & Farkash, New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellee Franklin.

Robert S. Groban, Jr., New York City (David N. Brockett, Fink, Weinberger, Fredman, Berman & Lowell, P.C., New York City, on the brief), defendants-appellees pro se.

Before TIMBERS, KEARSE and FRIEDMAN*, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

¶1

Plaintiffs appeal from a final judgment of the United States District Court entered in the Southern District of New York, Leonard B. Sand, Judge, dismissing their complaint seeking damages from defendants for alleged violation of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2510 et seq. (1982). The complaint alleged that defendants had violated the Act by causing a recording device to be attached to the home telephone of defendant Robert S. Franklin, the former husband of plaintiff Cheryl Janecka, during the course of a contested child custody proceeding following their divorce. In an opinion reported at 684 F.Supp. 24 (1987), the district court ruled that the complaint should be dismissed on the authority of Anonymous v. Anonymous, 558 F.2d 677 (2d Cir.1977). We agree and affirm substantially for the reasons stated in the opinion of the district court.

¶2

We have considered all of plaintiffs' arguments on the present appeal and have found them to be without merit, though not so lacking in merit that sanctions should be imposed.

¶3

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. Defendants' motions for special sanctions are denied. Normal costs are awarded to defendants.

*

United States Circuit Judge of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation

/843/f2d/110 · .json · Public domain