"The answer to this question ... is overwhelmingly yes. The figures pertaining to California therapists are truly striking -- virtually every psychiatrist, and nine out of ten psychologists and social workers had heard of the decision by name or had heard of a case "like it" but did not recognize the name. Knowledge of the case among 96% of the California psychiatrists is remarkable; it is a fair guess that there is no other legal decision, with the possible exception of controversial cases such as Brown v. Board of Education, which could command this level of recognition among a subgroup of laypersons. Yet psychiatrists from places other than California are not far behind -- 87% know the case by name and another 7% have heard of a case like it. Indeed, psychiatrists outside California have as greater knowledge of the case than California based psychologists and social workers. The strong showing by psychiatrists should not obscure two other facts: nine out of ten California psychologists and social workers also know about the case, while almost three out of four out-of-state psychologists know about it, as do more than half of the non-California social workers. These data demonstrate that the court and its critics were justified in believing that the Tarasoff decision would be well known and therefore might have a substantial influence on therapeutic practice." [Daniel J. Givelbe, William J. Bowers and Carolyn L. Blitch, "Tarasoff, Myth And Reality: an Empirical Study of Private Law in Action," 1984 Wis. L. Rev. 443, 457-459].