green
Positive treatment
4.4 score
Treatment trajectory · 2003 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2003
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
Herbert J. Varner v. Tom Monohan, Director, Illinois Department of Human Services
See Varner v. Illinois, 537 U.S. 802 , 123 S.Ct. 69 , 154 L.Ed.2d 3 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Jeffrey Brian Ziegler
See United States v. Slanina, 283 F.3d 670, 676-77 (5th Cir.2002), vacated on other grounds by 537 U.S. 802 , 123 S.Ct. 69 , 154 L.Ed.2d 3 (2002), on appeal after remand 359 F.3d 356 (5th Cir.2004) (per curiam); Leventhal v. Knapek, 266 F.3d 64, 74 (2d Cir.2001). 11 .
cited
Cited "see"
Simple Technology, Inc. v. Dense-Pac Microsystems, Inc.
See Simple Tech., Inc. v. Dense-Pac Microsys., Inc., — U.S.-, 123 S.Ct. 69 , 154 L.Ed.2d 3 (2002).
cited
Cited "see"
Talbert Fuel Systems Patents Co. v. Unocal Corp.
See Talbert Fuel Systems Patents Co. v. Unocal Corp., — U.S.-, 123 S.Ct. 70 , 154 L.Ed.2d 3 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In re Information Management Services, Inc. Derivative Litigation
Feb. 29, 2008) (finding employee had reasonable expectation of privacy where it was "hotly disputed whether [employee] was even aware of the policy” and employer could not show that employee had been notified of policy); Asia Global, 322 B.R. at 259-61 (finding employee had reasonable expectation of privacy where it was not clear that employees knew of employer policy; company did not appear to have a formal policy regarding use of computers and email); see also United States v. Slanina, 283 F.3d 670, 676-77 (5th Cir.2002) (holding employee had reasonable expectation of privacy where policy …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Haynes v. Office of Attorney General Phill Kline
See, e.g., United States v. Slanina, 283 F.3d 670, 676 (5th Cir.) (use of passwords and locking office doors to restrict an employer’s access to computer files is evidence of the employee’s subjective expectation plus where employer has no policy notifying employees that computer use could be monitored, and there is no indication that the employer directs others to routinely access the employees’ computers, the employees’ subjective beliefs that their computer files are private may be objectively reasonable), remanded on other grounds, 537 U.S. 802 , 123 S.Ct. 69 , 154 L.Ed.2d 3 (2002)…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Simple Technology, Inc.
v.
Dense-Pac Microsystems, Inc.
v.
Dense-Pac Microsystems, Inc.
01-1787.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 7, 2002.
Cited by 34 opinions | Published
C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U. S. 722 (2002).