Fultz v. Gilliam’s Empirical Analysis
942 F.2d 396 · 1991
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2023 · most notably Bartnicki v. Vopper (2001), Williams v. Poulos (1993)
15 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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. § 2511 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2517 (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 · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · United States v. American Trucking Associations
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Each time the illicitly obtained recording is replayed to a new and different listener, the scope of the invasion widens and the aggrieved party's injury is aggravated.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“36. Upon information and belief, Defendants knowingly manufactured, assembled, modified, sold or distributed an electronic, mechanical or other device or equipment knowing, or having reason to know, that the device or equipment is used primarily in the assistance of the unauthorized decryption of Satellite Programming, or direct-to-home satellite services, or is intended for any other prohibited activity. Upon information and belief, Defendants actively programmed and reprogrammed DirecTV Access Cards and designed electronic systems for use in surreptitiously obtaining DirecTV Satellite Programming. Further, by removing and inserting Pirate Access Devices and/or inserting illegally programmed Access Cards into valid DirecTV Receivers, Defendants engaged in the unlawful assembly and/or modification of devices primarily of assistance in the unauthorized decryption of Satellite Programming. Such conduct by Defendants violates 47 U.S.C. § 605 (e)(4).[ 30 ]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[t]he prohibitions Congress incorporated into section 2511(1) of Title III protect both these interests first, by prohibiting the surreptitious interception of private communications in the first instance -- a highly offensive physical intrusion on the victim's private affairs-- and second, by circumscribing the dissemination of private information so obtained.”
2 later decisions 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.