State v. Buchholz’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2017 · most notably Berkemer v. McCarty (1984), State v. Maurer (1984)
29 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Edwards v. Arizona · Rhode Island v. Innis · Oregon v. Mathiason · Argersinger v. Hamlin
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Miranda warnings must be given prior to any custodial interrogation regardless of whether the individual is suspected of committing a felony or misdemeanor”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“*** the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. ***.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““The state in the case at bar has not raised on appeal the question of whether appellee was subject to custodial interrogation at the time he gave the second statement. In light of the state’s argument that Miranda is inapplicable solely because appellee was convicted of a misdemeanor, we assume that the state concedes that appellee was in custody and subjected to interrogation.” Id., 11 Ohio St.3d at 26 ,11 OBR at 59, 462 N.E.2d at 1225, fn. 2 .”
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.