Legal Opinion
Samuel B. Pollock Jr. And Laura Pollock v. Sandra T. Pollock, Oliver H. Barber, and Luann C. Glidewell
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Decided October 16, 1998No. 97-5803PublishedCited by 58 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
McCALLA, District Judge.
Plaintiffs Samuel and Laura Pollock appeal the judgment of the district court granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. 1 Plaintiffs brought an action against Defendants, alleging that Defendants violated the federal wiretapping statute, Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of -1968, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521 (“Title III”), when Defendant Sandra Pollock tape-recorded conversations between her ex-husband, Plaintiff Samuel Pollock, and their minor daughter Courtney, and between Plaintiff Samuel Pollock’s…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- United States v. Diebold, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1962
- 60 Ivy Street Corporation (86-5500), and Coldwell Banker Commercial Group, Inc., (86-5517) v. R.C. Alexander and Doris AlexanderCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1987
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by58 opinions
- Robert Little v. Bp Exploration & Oil Company Richard Bruzina, Individually and in His Capacity as Store Manager for Bp Oil CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2001
- State v. ChristensenWashington Supreme Court · 2004
- Reginald Worthy v. Michigan Bell Telephone CoCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2012
- State v. WhitnerSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2012
- State v. SpencerSupreme Court of Iowa · 2007
53 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.