People v. Rivera’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently July 2020
1 federal appellate · 9 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986)
Relies on Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · In re Kauffman Mutual Fund Actions · Local 408, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. National Labor Relations Board · Harris v. McRae · Delli Paoli v. United States
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Any aggrieved person in any trial, hearing, or proceeding in or before any court, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, or other authority of the state of Colorado, or a political subdivision thereof, may move to suppress the contents of any intercepted written, oral, or electronic communication or the evidence derived therefrom on the grounds that: The communication ivas unlawfully intercepted; the order of authorization or approval under which it was intercepted is insufficient on its face; or the interception was not made in conformity with the order of authorization or approval.... If the motion is granted, the contents of the intercepted wire, oral, or electronic communication or the evidence derived therefrom shall not be received as evidence. The remedies and sanctions provided for in this section with respect to the interception of electronic communications are the only judicial remedies and sanctions for nonconstitutional violations of this section involving such communications.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“agreement to participate in electronic eavesdropping need not involve any negative consequences to the consenting party, especially when that party participates in the communication with prior knowledge that it will be monitored.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. People v. Richardson“less stringent than the standards applicable to questions of vol-untariness arising in the context of alleged violations of constitutional rights.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. People v. Richardson
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.