Smith v. Cincinnati Post & Times Star
District Court, S.D. Ohio
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
- William E. Bufalino v. The Michigan Bell Telephone CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1969
- Parkhurst v. KlingDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1965
- Coates v. United StatesDistrict Court, E.D. Missouri · 1970
3Cited by3 opinions
- Rufus Lee Smith v. The Cincinnati Post & Times-StarCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1973
- Simmons v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · 1978
- Wilkinson v. Federal Bureau of InvestigationDistrict Court, C.D. California · 1983