Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 911 F.2d 1573 - Walker v. Darby

Walker v. Darby’s Empirical Analysis

911 F.2d 1573 · 1990

Citation profile

471
cited by 471 later decisions
7
states following
April 2025
most recently cited

29 federal appellate · 3 district · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 471 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably Allen v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (1997), Forsyth v. Barr (1994)

29 federal appellate · 3 district · 7 state decisions

19001990200020102020decided

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 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · O'CONNOR v. Ortega · Chour v. Ferro · British Airways Board v. Boeing Co.

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 471 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “A mere 'scintilla' of evidence supporting the opposing party's position will not suffice; there must be enough of a showing that the jury could reasonably find for that party.”
    28 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “B. Definitions . . . 3. The term “intercepting device” means any device or apparatus which is capable of transmitting, receiving, amplifying or recording a wire or oral communication other than a hearing aid or similar device which is being used to correct subnormal hearing to normal and other than any telephone or telegraph instrument, equipment, facility or component thereof, (a) furnished to a subscriber or user by a communications common carrier in the ordinary course of its business under its tariff and being used by the subscriber or user in the ordinary course of its business; or (b) being used by a communications common carrier in the ordinary course of its business. 4. The term “interception” means to secretly hear, secretly record, or aid another to secretly hear or secretly record the contents of any wire or oral communication through the use of any intercepting device by any person other than the person given authority by all parties to such communication . . . C. Offenses. 1. Interception, oral communications prohibited. Except as otherwise specifically provided in this section any person who . . . wilfully commits an interception, attempts to commit an interception, or procures any other person to commit an interception . . . shall be fined ... or imprisoned . . . D. Exemptions 1. Permitted interception of wire or oral communications It shall not be a violation of this section— a. for an operator of a switchboard, or an officer, employee or agent of any communic”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “any person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted ... may in a civil action recover from the person or entity which engaged in that violation such relief as may be appropriate.”
    2 later decisions 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.