Thomas v. Pearl’s Empirical Analysis
998 F.2d 447 · 1993
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2016 · most notably Van Buskirk Mdl v. Cable News Network Inc (2002), Desnick v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. (1995)
16 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 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. § 2511 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 28 U.S.C. § 1652 (Rules of Decision Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Monroe v. Pape · Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co. · West v. Atkins · Hoffa v. United States
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication ... unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Most cases that arise under the wiretapping act involve law enforcement officers gathering evidence against suspected criminals. The exemption in [the counterpart to Wis. Stat. § 968.31 (2)(b)] for officials acting under color of law was evidently designed to aid police in ensnaring lawbreakers, not to unleash upon society millions of government workers — armed with recording devices strapped to their phones — seeking to invade the privacy of individuals neither suspected nor accused of committing crimes.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“'eavesdropping by wiretap may itself constitute such an invasion of privacy’ so as to meet the tortious purpose exception of § 2511(2)(d).” Plaintiffs are quoting Thomas out of context. In the portion quoted by Plaintiffs, the Seventh Circuit is citing a case which stands for the proposition that eavesdropping can satisfy the elements for the common law tort of intrusion and not Section 2511(2)(d). The court in fact noted that”
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.