Legal Opinion
Shamrock Foods Co. v. Gast
District Court, D. Arizona
Decided February 20, 2008No. CV-08-0219-PHX-ROSPublishedCited by 37 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
ROSLYN O. SILVER, District Judge.
Pending is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 17.) This motion requires the Court to interpret the meaning of the terms “without authorization” and “ex ceeds authorized access” in the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1030. The Court concludes that a violation for accessing a protected computer “without authorization” occurs only when initial access is not permitted. And, an “exceeds authorized access” violation occurs only when initial access to a protected computer is permitted but the access of certain information is not permitted.…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Navarro v. BlockCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
- Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2001
- Leocal v. AshcroftSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Marder v. LopezCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2006
- Pasquantino v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by37 opinions
- United States v. NosalCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012
- Bro-Tech Corp. v. Thermax, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2009
- Ajuba International, L.L.C. v. SahariaDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2012
- Motorola, Inc. v. Lemko CorporationDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 2009
- NCMIC Finance Corporation v. ArtinoDistrict Court, S.D. Iowa · 2009
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.