eSignature Legality in United States

In the U.S., eSignatures are legally recognized under laws like Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (E-SIGN Act) and the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA), which ensure their validity and enforceability. These regulations provide a legal framework for using electronic signatures in various industries, helping streamline transactions while ensuring compliance with federal and state laws.

Understanding the ESIGN Act

The ESIGN Act, enacted in 2000, grants legal validity to electronic signatures and records in commerce, giving them the same weight as traditional paper contracts. This legislation plays a crucial role in promoting eCommerce by enabling businesses and consumers to conduct transactions online without physical documents, showcasing the potential of electronic transactions.

In the U.S., two fundamental laws govern eSignatures: the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) and the ESIGN Act. Introduced in 1999, UETA provides a legal framework for eSignatures at the state level and has been adopted by 47 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. It governs most electronic transactions within these states.

The ESIGN Act, a federal law, complements UETA by ensuring the legal validity of eSignatures across the U.S. It applies in states that have not adopted UETA or where UETA is insufficient, particularly in interstate and global commerce. ESIGN includes a preemption clause allowing UETA to function as long as state laws align with federal standards. If conflicts arise, ESIGN takes precedence.

Both laws prioritize consumer protection, requiring consent for using eSignatures. However, ESIGN imposes stricter requirements for consumer transactions, ensuring clear notice and affirmative consent before proceeding with electronic agreements. Together, UETA and ESIGN provide a comprehensive and robust legal framework for electronic transactions in the U.S., instilling a sense of security and protection.

Industry-Specific Regulations for eSignatures in the U.S.

Industry-specific regulations for eSignatures in the U.S. ensure compliance with legal and security requirements across various sectors. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act mandates stringent data protection and authentication measures in financial services. The Securities and Exchange Commission requires brokerage firms to maintain secure, auditable records. In healthcare, eSignatures must meet Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) standards to safeguard patient confidentiality. Real estate transactions follow the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) and E-SIGN Act, with additional state-specific requirements for specific documents. These regulations ensure eSignatures meet legal, privacy, and security needs across industries, fostering trust and compliance.

The Role of Authentication and Consent in U.S. eSignature Laws

Authentication and consent are critical to ensuring the validity of eSignatures under U.S. law. Authentication verifies the signer’s identity, often through email verification, two-factor authentication (2FA), or knowledge-based authentication (KBA). This step prevents fraud and ensures the security of electronic transactions, making them as reliable as traditional paper documents. Proper authentication helps establish the legitimacy of the signer’s identity and the intent behind the signature.

Consent is equally important, as U.S. eSignature laws, such as the E-SIGN Act and the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA), require explicit agreement from all parties to use electronic signatures. Signers must be informed of their rights and provide explicit consent before proceeding with the transaction. This includes acknowledging the option to withdraw consent or request paper copies of documents. Authentication and consent form the legal foundation that makes eSignatures enforceable and secure in the U.S.

Exemptions to eSignature Laws: When Paper Signatures Are Still Required

While eSignatures are widely accepted under U.S. laws like the E-SIGN Act and UETA, there are several exemptions where paper signatures are still required. These exemptions typically involve documents with significant legal or personal implications, where additional safeguards are necessary to ensure the parties fully understand the terms and consequences. For instance, wills, codicils, and testamentary trusts often require physical signatures to confirm the signer’s intent and mental capacity when signing. Court orders, official notices, and specific family law matters—such as divorce decrees or adoption papers—may also necessitate traditional signatures due to their serious legal ramifications.

Additionally, negotiable instruments like promissory notes, real estate transactions (particularly involving transfers of title or deeds), and insurance terminations often require paper signatures. Some states also maintain their own restrictions, requiring physical signatures for certain consumer agreements or documents related to hazardous materials. These exemptions underscore the need for heightened scrutiny in specific legal contexts where the enforceability and authenticity of the document are paramount.

Seminal Case Law

The following cases are examples of where U.S. courts have addressed the use of electronic signatures:

Federal

American Family Life Assurance Company of Columbus v Biles, 2011 WL 4014463 2011 (S.D.Miss.)

American Family Life Assurance Company of Columbus v Biles, 2011 WL 5325622 (S.D.Miss.)

American Family Life Assurance Company of Columbus v Biles, 2011 WL 5835356 (S.D.Miss.) (affidavit of Robert G. Foley)

American Family Life Assurance Company of Columbus v Biles, 2011 WL 7909386 (S.D.Miss.) (supplemental affidavit of Robert G. Foley)

American Family Life Assurance Company of Columbus v Biles, 2011 WL 5835357 (S.D.Miss.) (affidavit of William J. Flynn)

American Family Life Assurance Company of Columbus v Glenda

C. Biles, Individually, Natural Mother of David Biles, Deceased, and Administratrix of Estate of David Biles, Deceased, 714 F.3d 887 (5th Cir. 2013)

Armstrong v Executive Office of the President, Office of Administration, 1 F.3d 1274 (D.C. Cir. 1993)

Banks v U.S., 94 Fed.Cl. 68 (2010)

Belville v Ford Motor Company, 919 F.3d 224 (2019)

Buck v Ford Motor Company, 526 Fed.Appx. 603 (2013)

Cloud Corporation v Hasbro, Inc, 314 F.3d 289 (7th Cir. 2002)

Crawford v Washington, 541 U.s. 36, 51, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177, 192 (2004)

Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), 113 S.Ct. 2786

Fisher v United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976), 96 S.Ct. 1569 (1976)

Frye v United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923)

Gasser v United States, 14 Cl.Ct. 476 (1988)

In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated March 25, 2011, 670 F.3d 1335 (11th Cir. 2012); 8.60 fn 1, 8.60 fn 4, 8.61, 8.74

Hancock v American Telephone & Telegraph Company, Inc., 701 F.3d 1248 (10th Cir. 2012)

Heveafil Sdn. Bdh. v United States, 58 Fed.Appx. 843, 2003 WL 1466193 (Fed.Cir.); 25 ITRD 1128

Jarvis v Ford Motor Company, 283 F.3d 33, 51 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1310 (2d Cir. 2002)

Knutson v Sirius XM Radio, Inc., 771 F.3d 559,14 Cal. Daily Op. Serv.12,769, 2014 Daily Journal D.A.R. 15,058

Melendez-Diaz v Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 310-11, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 174 L.Ed.2d 314, 321-22 (2009)

Olympic Insurance Company v H. D. Harrison, Inc., 418 F.2d 669 (5^th Cir. 1969)

Riley v California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014), 134 S.Ct. 2473 (2014)

St. Martin v Mobil Exploration & Producing U.S. Inc., 224 F.3d 402 (5th Cir. 2000) 31 Envtl. L. Rep. 20, 01155 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 270

Shroyer v New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc., 498 F.3d 976

In re Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, 978 F.Supp.2d 1053, 92 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 714, Prod. Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 19,244

In re: Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, Case Protective Order, Case Number: 8:10ML2151 JVS (FMOx)

United States v Fullwood, 342 F:3d 409 (5^th Cir. 2003)

United States v Kilgus, 571 F.2d 508 (9^th Cir. 1978)

United States v Kuchinski, 469 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2006)

United States of America v Apple MacPro Computer, 851 F.3d 238 (3rd Cir. 2017)

United States of America v Bonallo, 858 F.2d 1427 (9th Cir. 1988)

United States of America v Gavegnano, 305 Fed.Appx. 954 (4th Cir. 2009), 2009 WL 106370

United States of America v Linn, 880 F.2d 209 (9th Cir. 1989) 10.9

United States of America v Miller, 70 F.3d 1353 (D.C. Cir. 1995)

United States of America v Reedy, 304 F.3d 358 (5th Cir. 2002), 2002 WL 1966498

United States of America v Ross William Ulbricht, a/k/a Dread Pirate Roberts, a/k/a Silk Road, a/k/a Sealed Defendant 1, a/k/a DPR, 858 F.3d 71 (2nd Cir. 2017)

U.S. v Chiaradio, 684 F.3d 265 (1st Cir. 2012)

U.S. v Lizarraga-Tirado, 789 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 2015)

Wetsel-Oviatti Lumber Co. Inc., v United States, 40 Fed.Cl. 557 (1998)

Xu v Naqvi, 537 Fed.Appx. 76 (2013), 112 A.F.T.R.2d 2013-6538, 2013-2 USTC P 50 556

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

United States v Lubich, 72 M.J. 170 (2013)

Alabama

General Motors Corporation v Johnston, 592 So.2d 1054 (1992)

Arizona

Merrick Bank Corporation v Savvis, Inc., 2010 WL 148201

California

Aral v Earthlink, Inc., 134 Cal.App.4th 1161 (2005), 36 Cal.Rptr.3d 663 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)

Duhn Oil Tool, Inc. v Cooper Cameron Corporation, 609 F.Supp.2d 1090 (E.D. Cal. 2009)

Duhn Oil Tool, Inc. v Cooper Cameron Corporation, 2009 WL 3381052

Electronic Funds Solutions v Murphy, 34 Cal.App.4th 1161 (2005), 36 Cal. Rptr.3d 663 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)

Lisker v Knowles, 651 F.Supp.2d 1097 (C.D.Cal. 2009) In the Matter of the Search of an Apple iPhone Seized During the Execution of a Search Warrant on a Black Lexus IS300, California License Plate 35KGD203, 2016 WL 618401 (C.D. Cal. 16 February 2016)

In the Matter of the Search of a Residence in Aptos, California 95003, 2018 WL 1400401 (N.D. Cal. 2018)

In the Matter of the Search of a Residence in Oakland, California, 354 F.Supp.3d 1010 (N.D. Cal. 2019)

The People v Lugashi, 205 Cal.App.3d 632

People v Superior Court of Sacramento County, 2004 WL 1468698 (Cal. App. 3 Dist.)

Rosas v Macy’s, Inc., 2012 WL 3656274

Savetsky v Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc. d/b/a LegalShield, 2015 WL 4593744

United States v Lopez, 2016 WL 7370030 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2016)

United States v Spencer, 2018 WL 1964588 (N.D. Cal. 2018)

Columbia

In the Matter of the Search of [Redacted] Washington, District of Columbia, 317 F.Supp.3d 523 (D.D.C. 2018)

Liser v Smith, 254 F.Supp.2d 89 (D.D.C. 2003)

PHE, Incorporated dba Adam & Eve v Department of Justice, 139 F.R.D. 249 (D.D.C. 1991)

Colorado

The Gates Rubber Company v Bando Chemical Industries Limited, 167 F.R.D. 90 (D.Colo. 1996)

People of the State of Colorado v Huhen, 53 P.3d 735 (Colo.App. 2002)

U.S. v Fricosu, 841 F.Supp.2d 1232 (D.Colo. 2012)

Connecticut

Connecticut v Wright, 58 Conn.App. 136, 752 A.2d 1147 (Conn.App. 2000)

Ranta v Ranta, 2004 WL 504588 (Conn.Super.)

State v Swinton, 847 A.2d 921 (Conn. 2004)

State of Connecticut v Julie Amero, (not reported, 2007)

United States of America v Triumph Capital Group, Inc., 211 F.R.D. 31 (D.Conn. 2002)

Delaware

Genger v TR Investors, LLC, 26 A.3d 180 (2011), 2011 WL 2802832

Florida

In Re Air Crash Near Cali, Colombia on December 20, 24 F.Supp.2d 1340 (1998)  CX Digital Media, Inc. v Smoking Everywhere, Inc., 2011 WL 1102782 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 23, 2011)

Ford Motor Company v Stimpson, 115 So. 3d 401 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)

IT Strategies Group, Inc. v The Allday Consulting Group, L.L.C., 975 F.Supp.2d 1267 (2013)

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v Dade City’s Wild Things, Inc., 2017 WL 5187770 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 9, 2017)

State of Florida v Bastos, 985 So.2d 37 (Fla.App. 3 Dist. 2008)

State of Florida v Bjorkland, 924 So.2d 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)

State of Florida v Stahl, 206 So. 3d 124 (FlaApp. 2 Dist. 2016)

Strasser v Yalamanchi, 783 So.2d 1087 (Fla.App. 4 Dist. 2001), 2002 WL. 195056

Idaho

In the Matter of the Search of: a White Google Pixel 3 XL Cellphone in a black incipio case, 398 F.Supp.3d 785 (D.Idaho 2019)

Illinois

In re Application for a Search Warrant, 236 F.Supp.3d 1066 (N.D.IlI. 2017)

I & M Rail Link v Northstar Navigation, 21 F.Supp. 849 (N.D.III, 1998)

In the Matter of the Search Warrant Application for the cellular telephone in United States v Barrera, 415 F.Supp.3d 832 (N.D.I. 2019)

Kesse v Ford Motor Company, 2020 WL 832363

Trustmark National Bank v Target Corporation, Case NO 14-CV-2069

VPR Internationale v Does, 1-1017, 2011 WL 8179128 1

Indiana

Eunjoo Seo v State, 148 N.E.3d 952 (2019)

Seo v State, 109 N.E.3d 418 (Ind.App. 2018)

Iowa

Ferguson v Stilwill, 224 N.W.2d 11

Wilkens v Iowa Insurance Commissioner, 457 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa App. 1990)

Kansas

In re Estate of McLeish, 49 Kan.App.2d 246, 307 P.3d 221 (Kan.App. 2013)

Kerr v Dillard Stores Services, Inc., 2009 WL 385863, 105 Fair Empl.Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1298, 92 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 43,483

In the Matter of the Marriage of Takusagawa, 38 Kan.App.2d 401, 166 P.3d 440

Ronald L. Jones Charitable Trust v Sanders, 284 P.3d 375 (2012), 2012 WL 3966557

Swayden v Ricke, 242 P.3d 1281 (2010), 2010 WL 4977158

Whitlow v Board of Education, 108 Kan. 604, 196 P. 772

Williams v Sprint/United Management Company, 230 F.R.D. 640 (D.Kan. 2005)

Zhou v Pittsburg State University, 2003 WL 1905988 (D.Kan.)

Kentucky

Sawyer v Mills, Ky., 295 S.W.3d 79

Maine

Richardson v Bachelder, 19 Me. 82, 1841 WL 932 (Me.), 1 App. 82

Maryland

Harold H. Huggins Realty, Inc., v FNC, INC., 575 F.Supp.2d 696

Massachusetts

Basis Technology Corporation v Amazon.com, Inc., 71 Mass.App.Ct. 29, 878 N.E.2d 952 (Mass.App.Ct. 2008)

Campbell v General Dynamics Government Systems Corporation, 321 F.Supp.2d 142 (D.Mass. 2004)

Commonwealth v Jones, 117 N.E.3d 702 (Mass. 2019), 481 Mass. 540 (Sup.Jud.Ct. 2019)

CSX Transportation, Inc. v Recovery Express, Inc., 415 F.Supp.2d 6 (D.Mass. 2006)

Doherty v Registry of Motor Vehicles, No 97/CV0050 (Suffolk, SS Massachusetts District Court, May 28, 1997)

Shattuck v Klotzbach, 14 Mass. L. Rptr 360, 2001 WL 1839720 (Mass. Super.), affirmed 407 F.3d 546 (1st Cir. 2005)

Michigan

Williams v Litton Systems, Inc., 422 Mich. 796 (1985)

Williams v Litton Systems, Inc., 164 Mich.App. 195, 416 N.W.2d 704 (1987)

Williams v Unit Handling Systems Div. of Litton Systems, Inc., 433 Mich. 755, 449 N.W.2d 669 (1989)

Minnesota

In re Commissioner of Public Safety v Underdahl, 735 N.W.2d 706 (Minn. 2007)

Premier Homes and Land Corporation v Cheswell, Inc., 240 F.Supp.2d 97 (D.Mass. 2002), 2002 WL 31907329

State of Minnesota v Diamond, 905 N.W.2d 870 (Minn. 2018)

State of Minnesota v Underdahl, 767 N..2d 677 (Minn. 2009)

Mississippi

Franklin County Cooperative v MFC Services (A.A.L.), 441 So.2d 1376 (Miss. 1983)

Missouri

Burcham v Expedia, Inc., 2009 WL 586513

State of Missouri v Johnson, 576 S.W.3d 205 (Mo.App. W.D. 2019)

Nebraska

State of Nebraska v Ford, 501 N.W.2d 318 (Neb.App. 1993)

Nevada

United States v Wright, 431 F.Supp.3d 1175 (D.Nev. 2020)

New Hampshire

Howley v Whipple, 48 N.H. 487 (1869)

New Jersey

Hahnemann University Hospital v Dudnick, 292 N.J.Super. 11, 678 A.2d 266 (N.J.Super.A.D. 1996)

Monarch Federal Savings & Loan Association v Gesner, 156 N.J.Super. 107, 383 A.2d 475 (Ch.Div. 1977)

Pittson Co. v Allianz Insurance Co., 905 F.Supp. 1279 (D.N.J. 1995) rev’d in part on other grounds, 124 F.3d 508 (3d Cir. 1997)

Spevack, Cameron & Boyd v National Community Bank of New Jersey, 677 A.2d 1168 (N.J.SuperA.D. 1996), 291 N.J.Super: 577

State of New Jersey v Andrews, 197 A.3d 200 (N.J.SuperA.D. 2018)

State of New Jersey v Chun, 194 N.J. 54, 943 A.2d 114

State of New Jersey in the Interests of J. B. A Minor, 2010 WL 3836755

New Jersey v Pickett, 466 N.J.Super: 270, 246 A.3d 279

State of New Jersey v Swed, 255 N.J.Super: 228, 604 A.2d 978 (N.J.SuperA.D. 1992)

U.S. v Scarfo, 180 F.Supp.2d 572 (D.N.J. 2001)

New Mexico

United States v Bandy, Slip Copy, 2021 WL 414830

New York

Alfano v LC Main, LLC, 38 Misc.3d 1233(A) (2013) 969 N.Y.S.2d 801 (Table), 2013 WL 1111969 (N.Y.Supp.), 2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 50373 (U)

In re Apple, Inc., 149 F.Supp.3d 341 (E.D.N.Y. 2016)

Banco del Austro, S.A., v Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 215 F.Supp.3d 302, 90 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 1292

Bazak International Corp. v Tarrant Apparel Group, 378 F.Supp.2d 37758 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)

Berkson v Gogo, LLC, 97 F.Supp.3d 359 (2015)

Brown v The Butchers & Drovers’ Bank, 6 Hill 443, 41 Am.Dec. 755

Feldman v Citibank, N.A.; Pickman v Citibank, N.A., N.Y.City Civ.Ct., 443 N.Y.S.2d 43

Fjeja v Facebook, Inc. 841 F.Supp.2d 829 (2012)

Judd v Citibank, N.Y.City Civ.Ct., 435 N.Y.S.2d 210

Karam v Adirondack Neurosurgical Specialists, P.C., 93 A.D.3d 1260 (2012), 941 N.Y.S.2d 402, 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 02182

Labajo v Best Buy Stores, L.P., 478 F.Supp.2d 523 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)

In the Matter of an Article 75 Proceeding ADHY Investments Properties, LLC, Petitioner v Garrison Lifestyle Pierce Hill LLC, 41 Misc.3d 1211(A), 980 N.Y.S.2d 274, 2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 51634(U)

Novak d/b/a PetsWarehouse.com v Tucows, Inc., 73 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 331, 2007 WL 922306

Novak v Tucows, Inc., 330 Fed.Appx. 204, 2009 WL 1262947

In re Order requiring Apple, Inc, to assist in the execution of a search warrant issued by this Court, 2015 WL 5920207 (E.D.N.Y. 2015)

Parma Tile Mosaic & Marble Co., Inc., v Estate of Fred Short d/b/a Sime Construction Co., 155 Misc.2d 950 590 N.Y.S.2d 1019 (Sup. 1992)

Parma Tile Mosaic & Marble Co., Inc., v Estate of Fred Short d/b/a Sime Construction Co., 209 A.D.2d 495, 619 N.Y.S.2d 628

Parma Tile Mosaic & Marble Co., Inc., v Estate of Fred Short d/b/a Sime Construction Co., 663 N.E.2d 633 (N.Y. 1996), 640 N.Y.S.2d 477 (Ct. App. 1996), 87 N.Y.2D 524

Paul D. Ceglia v Mark Zuckerberg, Individually, and Facebook, Inc., 600 Fed. Appx. 34 (2015)

People v Carter, 50 Misc.3d 1210(A), 36 N.Y.S.3d 48 (Table), 2016 WL 239708, 2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 50067 (U)

People v Collins, 49 Misc.3d 595, 15 N.Y.S.3d 564 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2015), 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 25227

People of the State of New York v Rose, 11 Misc.3d 200 (2005), 805 N.Y.S.2d 506, 2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 25526

People v Williams, 35 N.Y.3d 24 (2020), 147 N.E.3d 1131, 124 N.Y.S.3d 593, 2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 02123

Porter V Citibank, N.A. 123 Misc.2d 28, 472 N.Y.S.2d 582 (N.Y.City Civ.Ct. 1984)

Robotic Vision Systems, Inc. v Cybo Systems, Inc, 17 F.Supp. 2d 151 (E.D.N.Y. 1998)

Rosenfed v Zerneck, 776 N.Y.S.2d 458 (Sup. 2004), 4 Misc.3d 194

State of New York, by Abrams v Citibank, N.A. 537 F.Supp 1192 (1982)

Stevens v Publicis, S.A., 50 A.D.3d 253, 854 N.T.S.2d 690, 2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 02880 U.S. Commodity Future Trading Commission v Amaranth Advisors, L.L.C., 554 F. Supp. 2d 523 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)

United States v Johnson, Case No. 1 15-er-00565-VEC (S.D.N.Y. June 7, 2016)

Zubulake v UBS Warburg LLC, 217 F.R.D. 309 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)

Zubulake v UBS Warburg LLC, 216 F.R.D. 280 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)

North Carolina

Meadlock v American Family Life Assurance Company of Columbus, 221 N.C.App. 669, 729 S.E.2d 127 (Table), 2012 WL 2891079

State of North Carolina v Marino, 747 S.E.2d 633 (N.C.App. 2013)

Ohio

Buck v Ford Motor Company, 810 F.Supp.2d 815 (N.D.Ohio 2011)

Fry v King, 192 Ohio App.3d 692, 950 N.B.2 229 (Ohio App. 2 Dist. 2011), 2011 WL 766583

In re National Century Financial Enterprises, Inc., Amedisys, Inc., v IP Morgan Chase Manhattan Bank, as Trustees, 310 B.R. 580 (Bkrtcy.S.D.Ohio 2004)

State of Ohio v Starner, Slip Copy, 2009 WL 3532306 (Ohio App. 3 Dist.)

Oklahoma

Bookout v Toyota Motor Corporation, No. CJ-2008-7969

5.94, 5.158, 5.181 fn 5, 5.184

(not reported)

Ponca Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma v Continental Carbon Co., 2008 WL 7211981

Rogers v Dell Computer Corporation, 127 P.3d 560 (Okla. 2005)

Oregon

Cole v Ford Motor Company, 136 Or.App. 45, 900 P.2d 1059 (1995)

State of Oregon v Pittman, 452 P.3d 1011 (Or.App. 2020)

Pennsylvania

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v Copenhefer, 526 Pa. 555, 587 A.2d 1353 (Pa. 1991)

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v Rizzuto, 777 A.2d 1069 (Pa. 2001)

In re Plate’s Estate, 148 Pa. 55, 23 A. 1038

Robb v The Pennsylvania Company for Insurance on Lives and Granting Annuities, 40 W.N.C. 129, 3 Pa.Super: 254, 1897 WL 3989 (Pa.Super. 1897) affirmed by 186 Pa. 456, 40 A. 969

Securities and Exchange Commission v Huang, 2015 WL 5611644 (E.D. Pa. 2015)

United States v Ellis, Slip Copy, 2021 WL 1600711

Puerto Rico

Woicechowiez v United States, 576 F.Supp. 2d 214 (D.Puerto Rico 2008)

Tennessee

State v Reed, 2009 WL 2991548

Waddle v Elrod, 367 S.W.3d 217 (2012)

Texas

Arista Records, L.L.C. v Tschirhart, 241 F.R.D. 462 (2006), 2006 WL. 2728927

Hotels.com, L.P. v Canales, 195 S.W.3d 147, 195 S.W.3d 147 (2006)

Krause v State, 243 S.W.3d 95 (Tex.App. 2007), 2007 WL 2004940

Parks v Seybold, 2015 WL 4481768

Williford v State of Texas, 127 S.W.3d 309 (Tex.App.-Eastland 2004), 2004 WL 67560

Vermont

In re Grand Jury Subpoena to Sebastien Boucher, 2007 WL 4246473 (D.Vt.)

In re Grand Jury Subpoena to Sebastien Boucher, 2009 WL 424718 (D.Vt.)

Virginia

U.S. v Burr, 25 F.Cas. 187 (1807)

Washington

Singh v Edwards Lifesciences Corp., 151 Wash. App. 137, 210 P.3d 337 (2009)

West Virginia

Johnson v Ford Motor Company, 310 F.Supp.3d 699 (2018)

Wisconsin

In the Matter of the Decryption of a Seized Data Storage System, 2013 WL 12327372 (E.D. Wis. 2013)

State v Loomis, 881 N.W.2d 749 (Wis. 2016)

State v Loomis, 137 S.Ct. 2290 (2017)

Wyoming

Estate of Reed v Buckley, Re, 672 P.2d 829 (Wyo. 1983)

Zimbabwe

Tedco Mgmt Svcs (PVT) Ltd v Grain Marketing Board 1996 (1) ZLR 109 (SC)

General

Moton v. Maplebear, Inc., 2016 WL 616343 (S.D.N.Y Feb. 9, 2016)

Harpham v. Big Moose Inspection, No. 321970, 2015 WL 5945842 (Mich. App. Oct 13, 2015)

Yearwood v. Dolgencorp, No. 6:15-cv-00898-LSC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138993 (N.D. Ala. Oct. 13, 2015)

Zulkiewski v. General American, 2012 WL 2126068 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012)

Barwick v. Geico, 2011 Ark. 128 (Ark. 2011)

IO Moonwalkers, Inc. v. Banc of America Merchant Services, 814 S.E.2d 583 (N.C. App 2018)