People v. Trieber’s Empirical Analysis
1946
Citation profile
54 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently December 2006 · most notably Clements v. T. R. Bechtel Co. (1954), 50 Cal. 2d 182 - County of Placer v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. (1958)
54 state decisions
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 15 Cal. 2d 731 - People v. Kynette · 19 Cal. 2d 319 - Greenberg v. Superior Court · 24 Cal. 2d 638 - People v. Moroney · 13 Cal. 2d 89 - Southern Pacific Co. v. Railroad Commission · Davis v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co.
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““That the authorization of an individual subscriber alone, however, does not make a connection to his station lawful within the meaning of section 640 [California Penal Code] is clearly indicated by the provisions of that section. These provisions relate only to connections to company controlled facilities, a limitation that indicates that they refer to the authorization of the company controlling the network involved. Moreover, the provisions prohibit not merely unauthorized connections to wires leading to stations of individual subscribers, but the tapping of ‘any telegraph or telephone wire, line, cable, or instrument under the control of any telegraph or telephone company.’ The section thus applies to tapping whether it be of a main or local switchboard or other instrument of any variety, or whether it be of a main trunk or smaller line, wire, or cable. An individual subscriber ordinarily has no interest in or control of the use of any wire, line, cable or instrument that transmits a number of messages from any sources at the same time. * * * A statute should be read and considered as a whole to determine the legislative intent. People v. Monroney, 24 Cal.2d 638, 642 , 150 P.2d 888 ; see 23 Cal.Jur. 760. Since in all these instances only the telegraph or telephone company can authorize a connection, it cannot be doubted that the section requires company authorization when a line leading to the station of an individual subscriber is tapped. “Even if the line to which the c”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“willfully and fraudulently, or clandestinely taps, or makes any unauthorized connection with any telegraph or telephone wire....”
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.