Legal Opinion
Caro v. Weintraub
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided August 13, 2010No. Docket 09-3685-cvPublishedCited by 72 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WESLEY, Circuit Judge:
Plaintiff-Appellant Marshall Caro filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Dorsey, /.) alleging, inter alia, a civil cause of action under Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, codified at 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-21 (“Title III” or the “Wiretap Act”). The district court dismissed Caro’s complaint. We affirm, and, in so doing, hold that the exception to the one-party consent provision of 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) requires that a communication be intercepted for the purpose of a tortious or criminal act…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Ben Gary Triestman v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, United States of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2006
- Harris v. MillsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2009
- Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2002
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by72 opinions
- In Re Nickelodeon Consumer Privacy LitigationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2016
- In Re Google Inc. Cookie Placement Consumer Privacy LitigationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2015
- Salveson v. JP Morgan Chase & Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2016
- Geffner v. The Coca-Cola CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019
- United States v. JiauCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2013
67 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.