Legal Opinion

Karoly v. Mancuso

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 24, 2013PublishedCited by 34 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

Justice SAYLOR.

In this direct appeal involving alleged intentional violations of the Wiretap Act, we consider whether the Commonwealth Court erred in granting a defense motion for summary judgment.

I. Background

Pennsylvania’s Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act (the “Wiretap Act,” or the “Act”)1 is designed to protect individual privacy while also giving law enforcement authorities a tool to combat crime. The statute generally prohibits intercepting, using, or disclosing private communications except pursuant to specified procedures. See, e.g., 18 Pa.C.S. § 5708…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Upjohn Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  2. Fine v. CheccioSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
  3. Commonwealth v. BomarSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
  4. Buffalo Township v. JonesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  5. Commonwealth v. BaumhammersSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2008

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

3Cited by34 opinions

  1. Burke, A., Aplt. v. Independence Blue CrossSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
  2. Bailets v. Pennsylvania Turnpike CommissionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2015
  3. Thomas v. CorbettCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
  4. Commonwealth v. Fant, R., Aplt.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2016
  5. Commonwealth v. ShrefflerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2018

29 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