Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 13 Cal. 3d 500 - People v. Lines

13 Cal. 3d 500 - People v. Lines’s Empirical Analysis

1975

Citation profile

175
cited by 175 later decisions
12
states following
September 2013
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 168 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 175 later decisions — most recently September 2013 · most notably 48 Cal. 3d 1046 - People v. Bittaker (1989), 28 Cal. 4th 557 - People v. Gurule (2002)

1 federal appellate · 168 state decisions — followed in 12 states

70019751980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Hickman v. Taylor · 46 Cal. 2d 818 - People v. Watson · 60 Cal. 2d 482 - People v. Henderson · 61 Cal. 2d 795 - People v. Wolff

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 175 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The statute specifically extends the client’s privilege to preclude examination of the attorneys secretary, stenographer, or clerk regarding information of communications between attorney and client acquired in such capacities, to rule out the possibility of their coming within the general rule that the privilege does not preclude the examination of a third person who overhears or otherwise has knowledge of communications between a client and his attorney. It does not follow, however, that intermediate agents of communication between attorney and client fall within that general rule. Had [the client] himself described his condition to his attorneys there could be no doubt that the communication would be privileged and that neither the attorney nor [the client] could be compelled to reveal it, even though a client is not listed in section 1881(2) among those who cannot be examined. It is no less the client’s communication to the attorney when it is given by the client to an agent for transmission to the attorney, and it is immaterial whether the agent is the agent of the attorney, the client, or both. The client's freedom of communication requires a liberty of employing other means than his own personal action. The privilege of confidence would be a vain one unless its exercise could be thus delegated. A communication, then, by any form of agency employed or set in motion by the client is within the privilege. [[Image here]] Thus, when communication by a client to his attorney”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““(a) The holder of the privilege; “(b) A person who is authorized to claim the privilege by the holder of the privilege . . . .” (Evid. Code, § 954.) “As used in this article, ‘confidential communication between client and lawyer’ means information transmitted between a client and his lawyer in the course of that relationship and in confidence by a means which, so far as the client is aware, discloses the information to no third persons other than those who are present to further the interest of the client in the consultation or those to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for the transmission of the information or the accomplishment of the purpose for which the lawyer is consulted, and includes a legal opinion formed and the advice given by the lawyer in the course of that relationship.” (Evid. Code, § 952.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[a]fter an examination of the entire cause, it does not appear to us to be reasonably probable that a result more favorable to defendant would have been reached in the absence of the above error. We cannot say that there has been a miscarriage of justice.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.