Janecka v. Franklin, 843 F.2d 110 (2d Cir. 1988). · Go Syfert
Search
Janecka v. Franklin, 843 F.2d 110 (2d Cir. 1988). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
21 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 11 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Alameda v. State (texcrimapp, 2007-06-27)
Treatment trajectory · 1988 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1988 2007 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Alameda v. State (2×)
Tex. Crim. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
Scheib v. Grant, 22 F.3d 149, 153-55 (7th Cir.1994); Newcomb v. Ingle, 944 F.2d 1534, 1536 (10th Cir.1991); Janecka v. Franklin, 843 F.2d 110, 111 (2nd Cir.1988), affirming and approving district court opinion at 684 F.Supp. 24 (S.D.N.Y.1987); Anonymous, 558 F.2d at 679 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Christensen
Wash. · 2005 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Pollock v. Pollock, 154 F.3d 601, 602 (6th Cir.1998); Scheib v. Grant, 22 F.3d 149, 154 (7th Cir.1994); Newcomb v. Ingle, 944 F.2d 1534, 1536 (10th Cir.1991); Janecka v. Franklin, 843 F.2d 110, 110 (2d Cir.1988); Campbell v. Price, 2 F.Supp.2d 1186, 1191-92 (E.D.Ark.1998).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Christensen
Wash. · 2004 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Pollock v. Pollock, 154 F.3d 601, 602 (6th Cir. 1998); Scheib v. Grant, 22 F.3d 149, 154 (7th Cir. 1994); Newcomb v. Ingle, 944 F.2d 1534, 1536 (10th Cir. 1991); Janecka v. Franklin, 843 F.2d 110, 110 (2d Cir. 1988); Campbell v. Price, 2 F. Supp. 2d 1186, 1191-92 (E.D.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Scheib v. Grant (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
7th Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
Because we believe that Newcomb is correctly decided and is in agreement with the decisions of the Second Circuit in Anonymous and Janecka, 843 F.2d at 111 (affirming dismissal of Title III claim brought by ex-spouse of defendant where defendant claimed concern for child motivated taping), we shall not presume that Newcomb is no longer the law of the Tenth Circuit 4 We note that the Supreme Court has refused to read a requirement of economic or profit-seeking activity into a statute absent clear language to that effect.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Scheib v. Grant (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
7th Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
Because we believe that Newcomb is correctly decided and is in agreement with the decisions of the Second Circuit in Anonymous and Janecka, 843 F.2d at 111 (affirming dismissal of Title III claim brought by ex-spouse of defendant where defendant claimed concern for child motivated taping), we shall not presume that Newcomb is no longer the law of the Tenth Circuit. .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Glazner v. Glazner (2×)
11th Cir. · 2003 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Janecka v. Franklin, 843 F.2d 110 (2d Cir.1988) (upholding dismissal of Title III claim on the authority of Anonymous ). 8 Chevron Oil involved whether to apply a change in a statute of limitations retroactively.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Commonwealth v. Barboza
Mass. App. Ct. · 2002 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Janecka v. Franklin, 843 F.2d 110, 111 (2d Cir. 1988) (intercepts by recording device attached to home telephone permissible under extension telephone exception); Newcomb, supra at 1536 (mother’s recording at her home of her minor son’s telephone conversations with his father, as father instructed child to set fire to family home, did not violate Title III); Scheib v. Grant, 22 F.3d 149, 154 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 929 (1994) (recording by telephone answering machine attached to extension phone allowed under exception where father concerned about minor child’s abuse…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Dr. Ivo Janecka and Cheryl Janecka
v.
Robert S. Franklin, Esq. Samuel G. Fredman, Esq. & Neil A. Fredman, Esq., Individually and as Officers, Employees And/or Agents of Fink, Weinberger, Fredman, Berman & Lowell, P.C. And Fink, Weinberger, Fredman, Berman & Lowell, P.C., a Professional Corporation, Organized Under the Laws of the State of New York
944.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Apr 4, 1988.
843 F.2d 110
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

843 F.2d 110

Dr. Ivo JANECKA and Cheryl Janecka, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
Robert S. FRANKLIN, Esq.; Samuel G. Fredman, Esq. & Neil A.
Fredman, Esq., individually and as officers, employees
and/or agents of Fink, Weinberger, Fredman, Berman & Lowell,
P.C.; and Fink, Weinberger, Fredman, Berman & Lowell, P.C.,
a Professional Corporation, organized under the laws of the
State of New York, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 944, Docket 87-7997.

United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit.

Argued March 30, 1988.
Decided April 4, 1988.

David A. Goldstein, New York City, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Lawrence Farkash, New York City (Laufer & Farkash, New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellee Franklin.

Robert S. Groban, Jr., New York City (David N. Brockett, Fink, Weinberger, Fredman, Berman & Lowell, P.C., New York City, on the brief), defendants-appellees pro se.

Before TIMBERS, KEARSE and FRIEDMAN[*], Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Plaintiffs appeal from a final judgment of the United States District Court entered in the Southern District of New York, Leonard B. Sand, Judge, dismissing their complaint seeking damages from defendants for alleged violation of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2510 et seq. (1982). The complaint alleged that defendants had violated the Act by causing a recording device to be attached to the home telephone of defendant Robert S. Franklin, the former husband of plaintiff Cheryl Janecka, during the course of a contested child custody proceeding following their divorce. In an opinion reported at 684 F.Supp. 24 (1987), the district court ruled that the complaint should be dismissed on the authority of Anonymous v. Anonymous, 558 F.2d 677 (2d Cir.1977). We agree and affirm substantially for the reasons stated in the opinion of the district court.

2

We have considered all of plaintiffs' arguments on the present appeal and have found them to be without merit, though not so lacking in merit that sanctions should be imposed.

3

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. Defendants' motions for special sanctions are denied. Normal costs are awarded to defendants.

*

United States Circuit Judge of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation