Legal Opinion
United States v. David Nosal
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided July 5, 2016No. 14-10037, 14-10275PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Dissent by Judge REINHARDT
OPINION
McKEOWN, Circuit Judge:
This is the second time we consider the scope of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1030, with respect to David Nosal. The CFAA imposes criminal penalties on whoever “knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access, and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value.... ” Id. § 1030(a)(4) (emphasis added).
Only the first prong of the section is before us in this appeal: knowingly and with intent to defraud…
2Cases cited59 opinions
- Jackson v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Neder v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
- Pinkerton v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Jones v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
- Moskal v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
54 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Facebook, Inc. v. Power Ventures, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2016
- United States v. NosalCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2016
- United States v. Walter LiewCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2017
- Escue v. Sequent, Inc.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 2012
- Facebook, Inc. v. Power Ventures, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2016
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.