Fourth Circuit· 3/6/2019

Patrick Hately v. Dr. David Watts

Citations

917 F.3d 770

How courts have described this case

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

noting that the SCA was enacted to protect against illicit access to stored communications in “remote computing operations and large data banks that stored emails”
holding that “previously opened and delivered emails fall within” Section 2510(17)(B)
explaining that statutory interpretation “begin[s] with the plain language” of statute, and “[i]f the plain language is unambiguous, we need look no further” (internal quotation marks omitted)
noting that when emails are stored using a web-based server, like the Google cloud system, then the user’s “computer or mobile device merely serves as a conduit to access the [host’s] server.”
noting that statutory interpretation must “begin with the plain language”
noting majority of courts have found that subsections (A) and (B) identify “two discrete types” of protected communications

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Gregory, Motz, Wynn

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

13 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

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

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.