Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 995 F. Supp. 2d 724 - Huff v. Spaw

995 F. Supp. 2d 724 - Huff v. Spaw’s Empirical Analysis

2014

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
March 2018
most recently cited

1 federal appellate ·

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. § 2516 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2520 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 28 U.S.C. § 1367 · 28 U.S.C. § 2520

Relies on Luster v. Cushman · Carlsbad Technology, Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc. · Walker v. Darby · Silverman v. United States · Motor Company Unsecureds' Committee of Motor Company v. Z W

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

  1. “it was unreasonable for Plaintiffs to expect that their face-to-face conversations would not be overheard by someone on the other end of a pocket dial phone call. If Plaintiffs expected that their conversations would not be overheard and recorded as they were, they could have done something to prevent it from happening. The easiest measure might have been to simply put the cell phone away while they were having private conversations. Or [Executive] could have locked his phone to prevent a pocket dial call. But they did not take those measures, or any other measure, to prevent the inadvertent phone call from being placed. If anyone must bear the brunt of the embarrassing consequences of this pocket dial, it must be the caller; not the recipient who had every right to answer the call and remain on the line. 995 F.Supp.2d 724 , 734 (E.D. Ky. 2014).”
    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.