Skip to main content
Fifth Circuit· 8/9/2005

DIRECTV, Inc. v. Robson

Citations

  • 420 F.3d 532
  • 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 16679
  • 2005 WL 1870775

How courts have described this case

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

  • noting that § 2520(a) does not provide a private right of action “for merely possessing or purchasing” a device in violation of § 2512(1)(b)
  • noting that § 2520(a)- does not provide a private right of action “for merely possessing or purchasing” a device in violation of § 2512(l)(b)
  • ruling that § 605(e)(4) is not categorically inapplicable to “individual users”
  • rejecting district court’s statement that 605(e)(4) “is a provision relating to manufacturers and sellers, rather than to individual users”
  • collecting cases that have found “no merit in [the] assertion that § 2520 expressly provides a private cause of action for [all] violations of the criminal proscriptions of § 2512” (alterations, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted)
  • collecting cases that have found “no merit in [the] assertion that § 2520 expressly provides a private cause of action for [all] violations of the criminal proscriptions of § 2512” (alterations, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Higginbotham, Barksdale, Clement

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

103 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

49 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named DIRECTV, Inc. v. Robson

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.