United States v. Harrell’s Empirical Analysis
983 F.2d 36 · 1993
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently April 2015
12 federal appellate · 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. § 2512 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 47 U.S.C. § 605
Relies on Illinois v. Vitale · Ball v. United States · Quality Inns International, Inc. v. L.B.H. Associates Ltd. Partnership · United States v. McNutt · On/tv of Chicago v. Julien
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“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.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]e find it unreasonable to believe that an individual, having illegally spent about $300 for the modified chip, will still primarily limit himself to his originally paid programming,” id. at 38 , to support its argument that, essentially, any possession of a pirate access device gives rise to an inference of interception. However, in Harrell, our focus was on determining whether the devices were”
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.