United States v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis
978 F.3d 415 · 1992
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently February 2017 · most notably Allarcom Pay Television, Ltd. v. General Instrument Corp. (1995), United States v. Manzer (1995)
18 federal appellate · 2 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 17 U.S.C. § 506 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 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. § 605
Relies on Illinois v. Vitale · United States v. Batchelder · Ball v. United States · United States v. Borden Co. · Radzanower v. Touche Ross & 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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter ... for any person— (iii) to engage in any conduct which— (I) is prohibited by section 633 of the Communications Act of 1934 [ 47 U.S.C. § 553 which prohibits the unauthorized reception of cable television]; or (II) is excepted from the application of section 705(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 [ 47 U.S.C. § 605 (a) ] by section 705(b) of that Act [ 47 U.S.C. § 605 (b)].”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Receiving and decrypting or unscrambling a satellite signal, however, takes significant effort and is not an act of inadvertence. Furthermore, the act of encrypting or scrambling a satellite signal evinces the originator’s intent to prevent unauthorized persons from viewing the transmission.... Davis [defendant] altered the operation of the VCII devices by making major modifications. He opened the devices, thereby breaking a security seal, removed an epoxy-protected microprocessor chip by melting away the epoxy, added a connector and replaced the removed microprocessor chip with a new one containing modified software.... [A]ny direct examination of a device in order to discover its address or to repair it would have led to the discovery of the illegal modifications. Consequently, individuals possessing these modified devices were required to use them in a most surreptitious manner. Also, “[a] device will not escape the prohibition merely because it may have innocent uses. The crucial test is whether the design of the device renders it primarily useful for surreptitious listening.” ... Accordingly, the devices Davis modified violated section 2512(l)(b).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“manufactures, assembles, possesses, or sells any electronic, mechanical, or other device, knowing or having reason to know that the design of such device renders it primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications.”
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.