United States v. Lande’s Empirical Analysis
968 F.2d 907 · 1992
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently February 2017 · most notably DIRECTV, Inc. v. Robson (2005), Allarcom Pay Television, Ltd. v. General Instrument Corp. (1995)
27 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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. § 2 · 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. § 2512 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 47 U.S.C. § 553 · 47 U.S.C. § 605
Relies on United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc. · United States v. Batchelder · Ball v. United States · Moskal v. United States · United States v. Batchelder
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(4) Any person who manufactures, assembles, modifies, imports, exports, sells, or distributes any electronic, mechanical, or other device or equipment, knowing or having reason to know that the device or equipment is primarily of assistance in the unauthorized decryption of satellite cable programming, or is intended for any other activity prohibited by subsection (a) of this section, shall be fined not more than $500,000 for each violation, or imprisoned for not more than 5 years for each violation, or both. For purposes of all penalties and remedies established for violations of this paragraph, the prohibited activity established herein as it applies to each such device shall be deemed a separate violation.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[Ejleetronie communication” means any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photooptical system that affects interstate or foreign commerce ...”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Mr. MOORHEAD: ... this legislation covers conduct that may be prohibited under [47 U.S.C. 605]. Do I understand correctly that the sanctions contained in this legislation would be imposed in addition to, and not instead of, those contained in section [605] ... ? Mr. KASTENMEIER: That is correct ... The private viewing of any other video transmission not otherwise excepted by section [605(b) ] will be subject to action under both the Communications Act and this legislation.”
2 later decisions 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.