Legal Opinion
DirecTV v. Zink
District Court, E.D. Michigan
Decided September 23, 2004No. CIV.03-70893PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
FEIKENS, District Judge.
DirecTV brought suit alleging Defendant Carol Zink violated the Federal Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. § 605), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521), and Michigan common law by purchasing a device that allowed her to illegally modify DirecTV access cards so that she could and did watch satellite TV without paying for a subscription. Zink moved for a protective order to stop discovery in December, then filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in January that was accompanied by a Motion for Sanctions for filing and…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Cone v. West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Vivian D. Redding v. Beverly St. Eward, Detroit Police OfficerCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2001
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Aventis Pasteur, Inc. v. SkevofilaxCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2007
- Gaines v. Two Doors Down, LLCDistrict Court, E.D. Tennessee · 2020