Legal Opinion

Goodspeed v. Harman

District Court, N.D. Texas

Decided March 11, 1999No. 3:97-cv-02681PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

KAPLAN, United States Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiffs have sued Charles Harman, Sr. in separate actions under Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1996, 18 U.S.C. § 2510, et seq. (“Title III”). 1 A bench trial was held on January 19, 25 & 26, 1999. The Court now makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

I

The facts of this case are set forth at length in the report and recommendation of the magistrate…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
  2. United States v. RodgersSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  3. Williams v. PoulosCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1993
  4. Steve Jackson Games, Inc. v. United States Secret ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1994
  5. Muscogee (Creek) Nation, a Federally Recognized Indian Tribe v. Donald Hodel, Secretary, U.S. Department of InteriorCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1988

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Peavy v. WFAA-TV, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2000
  2. DirecTV, Inc. v. GriffinDistrict Court, M.D. Florida · 2003
  3. Tapley v. CollinsDistrict Court, S.D. Georgia · 1999
  4. Schmidt v. DevinoDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2001
  5. In Re HarmanUnited States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Texas · 1999

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API