Warden v. Kahn’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently April 2021 · most notably 51 Cal. 3d 202 - Kimmel v. Goland (1990), 38 Cal. 3d 355 - Ribas v. Clark (1985)
4 federal appellate · 32 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 Katz v. United States · Connally v. General Construction Co. · 57 Cal. 2d 450 - Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court · Babich v. United States · Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In the former situation [i.e., secondhand repetition] the speaker retains control over the extent of his immediate audience. Even though that audience may republish his words, it will be done secondhand, after the fact, probably not in its entirety, and the impact will depend on the credibility of the teller. Where electronic monitoring is involved, however, the speaker is deprived of the right to control the extent of his own firsthand dissemination.... In this regard participant monitoring ... den[ies] the speaker a most important aspect of privacy of communication, the right to control the extent of first instance dissemination of his statements.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[a]ny person ... [from] willfully and without the consent of all parties to the communication ... attempt[ing] ... to learn the contents ... of any ... communication while the same is in transit or passing over any ... line ... or is being sent from, or received at any place within this state....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The dominant objective of the act, as reflected in its preamble, is `to protect the right of privacy of the people of this state.'”
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.