Legal Opinion

Parkhurst v. Kling

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided January 25, 1967No. Civ. A. No. 36164PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*781OPINION

KRAFT, District Judge.

On November 22, 1965, we filed an Opinion herein, D.C., 249 F.Supp. 315, in which we held, inter alia, that when one party to a telephone conversation, himself, records a communication received from the other party, no interception occurs within the meaning of the Federal and Pennsylvania statutes. 47 U.S.C.A. § 502; 15 P.S. § 2443.

As one of the supporting precedents for our decision we cited Commonwealth v. Murray, 206 Pa.Super. 298, 304, 213 A.2d 162 (1965). That decision was reversed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on October 6, 1966, 423 Pa. 37, 223 A.2d…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Rathbun v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
  2. Commonwealth v. MurraySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1966
  3. Commonwealth v. MurraySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1965
  4. Parkhurst v. KlingDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1965
  5. Overseas Exchange Corp. v. Inwood Motors, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1956

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. DiSilvioSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
  2. Amherst Leasing Corp. v. Emhart Corp.District Court, D. Connecticut · 1974
  3. General Star Indemnity Co. v. Platinum Indemnity Ltd.District Court, S.D. New York · 2002
  4. Travelers Rental Co. v. Ford Motor Co.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1987
  5. Flanagan v. Wyndham International Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 2005

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