Commonwealth v. Smith

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that an employee's surreptitious tape recording of a workplace conversation with his supervisor would violate 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 5703
• concluding that the trial court erred when it ruled that the use of a smartphone’s “voice memo” app did not constitute the use of a “device” under the Wiretap Act where the smartphone “was not being used, by any measure, as a telephone”
• reiterating that when General Assembly defines words used in statute, those definitions are binding
• holding surreptitious recording of a conversation is a violation of the wiretap act

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

1 case in this archive cites this case.

• Com. v. Lowrey, M.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2025-03-12

Cites

13 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Commonwealth v. Mayhue
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1994-03-18· cited 87×
• Commonwealth v. Hess
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1980-05-30· cited 84×
• Commonwealth v. Kimmel
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1989-10-05· cited 58×
• Commonwealth v. Spangler
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 2002-07-17· cited 45×
• Commonwealth v. Ruder
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2013-02-25· cited 45×
• Commonwealth v. Deck
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2008-07-09· cited 34×
• Commonwealth v. Stem
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2014-07-11· cited 31×
• Commonwealth v. Carbo
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2003-04-11· cited 26×
• Commonwealth v. Spence
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 2014-04-28· cited 25×
• Commonwealth v. Diego
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2015-06-23· cited 18×
• Commonwealth v. Black
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2015-01-13· cited 17×
• Commonwealth v. Dewar
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1996-04-03· cited 15×
• Commonwealth v. De Marco
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1990-07-26· cited 6×