Legal Opinion

Smith v. Cincinnati Post & Times Star

District Court, S.D. Ohio

Decided June 29, 1972No. 8082PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION AND ORDER

PORTER, District Judge.

In this case the essence of the complaint is that the defendants willfully published material of a telephone conversation in violation of the Federal Wiretap Laws (18 U.S.C. § 2511). Jurisdiction is laid under 18 U.S.C. § 2520. This section authorizes a civil action by “any person whose wire or oral communication is intercepted, disclosed or used in violation of this chapter.” Defendants have moved for a summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 F.R.Civ.P., and this stands submitted under Local Rule 14 on memoranda pro and con and the pleadings, which…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. William E. Bufalino v. The Michigan Bell Telephone CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1969
  2. Parkhurst v. KlingDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1965
  3. Coates v. United StatesDistrict Court, E.D. Missouri · 1970

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Rufus Lee Smith v. The Cincinnati Post & Times-StarCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1973
  2. Simmons v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · 1978
  3. Wilkinson v. Federal Bureau of InvestigationDistrict Court, C.D. California · 1983

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

Powered by the Exa API