36 Cal. 3d 98 - People v. Chapman’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 107 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 111 later decisions — most recently January 2021 · most notably 24 Cal. 4th 856 - People v. Palmer (2001), 41 Cal. 4th 668 - People v. Alice (2007)
1 federal appellate · 107 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 Wong Sun v. United States · Katz v. United States · National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. State of Alabama Patterson · Smith v. Maryland · United States v. Miller
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 111 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable seizures and searches may not be violated; and a warrant may not issue except on probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons and things to be seized.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) disclosure of one's name and address to the telephone company is not entirely volitional, (2) such disclosure is plainly for the limited purpose of billing, and (3) by affirmatively requesting an unpublished listing, the defendant took specific steps to ensure greater privacy than that afforded other telephone customers.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[T]he customer’s expectation of privacy in information gathered by the company during the regular course of its business must be honored as a reasonable one. That expectation cannot be deemed to have been abandoned because the customer is required to disclose to the telephone company certain information.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Chryst
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.