38 Cal. 3d 355 - Ribas v. Clark’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 3 district · 213 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 292 later decisions — most recently April 2021 · most notably 50 Cal. 3d 205 - Silberg v. Anderson (1990), 50 Cal. 3d 1118 - Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Bear Stearns & Co. (1990)
22 federal appellate · 3 district · 213 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 7 Cal. 3d 616 - Unruh v. Truck Insurance Exchange · 3 Cal. 3d 914 - Gibson v. Gibson · 22 Cal. App. 3d 626 - Kachig v. Boothe · 28 Cal. App. 3d 484 - Pettitt v. Levy · 30 Cal. 3d 770 - Kilgore v. Younger
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 292 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“it applies to virtually all other causes of action, with the exception of an action for malicious prosecution.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“We have read section 631 as prohibiting far more than illicit wiretapping. ( Tavernetti v. Superior Court (1978) 22 Cal.3d 187, 192-193 [ 148 Cal.Rptr. 883 , 583 P.2d 737 ].) In Tavernetti , we considered the section to proscribe three separate acts: (1) intentional wiretapping, (2) willful attempts to learn the contents of a communication in transit, and (3) attempts to use or publicize information obtained in either manner. ( Id. at p. 192 [ 148 Cal.Rptr. 883 , 583 P.2d 737 ]; see also People v. Suite (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 680, 686 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 825 ].) Additionally, the Privacy Act has long been held to prevent one party to a conversation from recording it without the other's consent. ( People v. Wyrick (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 903, 909 [ 144 Cal.Rptr. 38 ]; Forest E. Olson, Inc. v. Superior Court (1976) 63 Cal.App.3d 188, 191 [ 133 Cal. Rptr. 573 ].) While one who imparts private information risks the betrayal of his confidence by the other party, a substantial distinction has been recognized between the secondhand repetition of the contents of a conversation and its simultaneous dissemination to an unannounced second auditor, whether that auditor be a person or mechanical device. ( Warden v. Kahn, supra, 99 Cal.App.3d 805, 813-814 [ 160 Cal.Rptr. 471 ].)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[a]ny person who ... intentionally taps, or makes any unauthorized connection ... with any telegraph or telephone wire, line, cable, or instrument ... or who willfully and without the consent of all parties to the communication ... or who uses, or attempts to use, in any manner, or for any purpose, or to communicate in any way, any information so obtained, or who aids, agrees with, employs, or conspires with any person or persons to unlawfully do, or permit, or cause to be done any of the acts or things mentioned above in this section. 4”
3 later decisions 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.