Newcomb v. Ingle
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
944 F.2d 1534 (1991)
- Written by Miller Jozwiak, JD
Facts
Jean Mackey and her father, Howard Day (the custodians) (defendants), set up a wiretapping device to monitor the communications of Mackey’s minor son, Brent Newcomb (plaintiff). Mackey and Day did so in Mackey’s home without Newcomb’s consent. One of the recordings captured a conversation between Newcomb and his father as the father instructed Newcomb and Newcomb’s brother on how to set fire to the home. An investigation ensued, and the custodians disclosed the recording, which in turn was given to a prosecutor. Newcomb’s father was convicted and lost his parental rights. Newcomb then reached the age of majority and brought various claims against the custodians and the prosecuting attorney. Among the claims was one under Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (Title III), which prohibited any person from willfully intercepting any wire or oral communication and which created a civil cause of action for such violations. The custodians moved for summary judgment. Reasoning that there was no causal connection between the custodians’ actions and Newcomb’s alleged damages, the district court granted summary judgment. Newcomb appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Anderson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
