20 Cited authorities

Skilling v. U.S.
561 U.S. 358 (2010) Cited 1,651 times 57 Legal Analyses
Holding that Hedgpeth's harmless-error approach applies on direct appeal
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project
561 U.S. 1 (2010) Cited 856 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that the plaintiffs had standing because a statute criminalized knowingly providing material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization, and the plaintiffs had provided support to groups designated as terrorist organizations and planned to provide similar support in the future
McNally v. United States
483 U.S. 350 (1987) Cited 1,100 times 30 Legal Analyses
Holding that the mail fraud statute is "limited in scope to the protection of property rights"
LVRC Holdings LLC v. Brekka
581 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) Cited 495 times 49 Legal Analyses
Holding that that the CFAA targets the unauthorized procurement or alteration of information rather than its misuse
Ashton v. Kentucky
384 U.S. 195 (1966) Cited 187 times
Holding that Kentucky's common law crime of criminal libel was unconstitutionally void, as no court case had redefined the crime's sweeping language in understandable terms, leaving prosecution decisions to be made on a case to case basis
International Airport Centers v. Citrin
440 F.3d 418 (7th Cir. 2006) Cited 174 times 74 Legal Analyses
Holding that while the "difference between access ‘without authorization’ and ‘exceeding authorized access' is paper thin," an employee who breached a duty of loyalty terminated the agency relationship and exceeded authorized access in using company laptop
People v. Shack
86 N.Y.2d 529 (N.Y. 1995) Cited 213 times
Upholding aggravated harassment statute that criminalizes only those telephone calls made "with no purpose of legitimate communication"
EF Cultural Travel BV v. Explorica, Inc.
274 F.3d 577 (1st Cir. 2001) Cited 135 times 47 Legal Analyses
Holding that violations of a confidentiality agreement or other contractual restraints could give rise to a claim for unauthorized access under the CFAA
People v. Dupont
107 A.D.2d 247 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985) Cited 43 times
In Dupont, the Appellate Division, First Department held that because the preferred position of the First Amendment freedoms is beyond dispute, "First Amendment freedoms must be given weighty consideration in balancing them against the interests underlying challenged statutes.
People v. Golb
102 A.D.3d 601 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013) Cited 8 times
2013-01-29 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Raphael GOLB, Defendant–Appellant. Ronald L. Kuby, New York, for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Vincent Rivellese of counsel), for respondent. MAZZARELLI Ronald L. Kuby, New York, for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Vincent Rivellese of counsel), for respondent. MAZZARELLI, J.P., RENWICK, RICHTER, GISCHE, CLARK, JJ. Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.)
Section 1030 - Fraud and related activity in connection with computers
18 U.S.C. § 1030 Cited 3,229 times 408 Legal Analyses
Holding cellular phones are protected
Section 156.05 - Unauthorized use of a computer
N.Y. Penal Law § 156.05 Cited 27 times
A person is guilty of unauthorized use of a computer when he or she knowingly uses, causes to be used, or accesses a computer, computer service, or computer network without authorization. Unauthorized use of a computer is a class A misdemeanor. N.Y. Penal Law § 156.05
Section 156.00 - Offenses involving computers; definition of terms
N.Y. Penal Law § 156.00 Cited 16 times
The following definitions are applicable to this chapter except where different meanings are expressly specified: 1. "Computer" means a device or group of devices which, by manipulation of electronic, magnetic, optical or electrochemical impulses, pursuant to a computer program, can automatically perform arithmetic, logical, storage or retrieval operations with or on computer data, and includes any connected or directly related device, equipment or facility which enables such computer to store, retrieve

The People, Respondent,v.Raphael Golb, Appellant.

20 Cited authorities

Holding that Hedgpeth's harmless-error approach applies on direct appeal

Holding that the plaintiffs had standing because a statute criminalized knowingly providing material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization, and the plaintiffs had provided support to groups designated as terrorist organizations and planned to provide similar support in the future

Holding that the mail fraud statute is "limited in scope to the protection of property rights"

Holding that that the CFAA targets the unauthorized procurement or alteration of information rather than its misuse

Holding that Kentucky's common law crime of criminal libel was unconstitutionally void, as no court case had redefined the crime's sweeping language in understandable terms, leaving prosecution decisions to be made on a case to case basis

Holding that while the "difference between access ‘without authorization’ and ‘exceeding authorized access' is paper thin," an employee who breached a duty of loyalty terminated the agency relationship and exceeded authorized access in using company laptop

Upholding aggravated harassment statute that criminalizes only those telephone calls made "with no purpose of legitimate communication"

Holding that violations of a confidentiality agreement or other contractual restraints could give rise to a claim for unauthorized access under the CFAA

In Dupont, the Appellate Division, First Department held that because the preferred position of the First Amendment freedoms is beyond dispute, "First Amendment freedoms must be given weighty consideration in balancing them against the interests underlying challenged statutes.

Holding cellular phones are protected