Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 110 N.M. 76 - State v. Pierce

State v. Pierce’s Empirical Analysis

1990

Citation profile

117
cited by 117 later decisions
1
states following
March 2018
most recently cited

2 district · 115 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 117 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably Swafford v. State (1991), Santillanes v. State (1993)

2 district · 115 state decisions

560199020002010decided

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 North Carolina v. Pearce · Grayned v. City of Rockford · Kolender v. Lawson · Missouri v. Hunter · United States v. Harriss

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 117 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The rule of merger precludes an individual's conviction and sentence for a crime that is a lesser included offense of a greater charge upon which defendant has also been convicted.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “). B. Defendant's Interview Statements Were Voluntary {30} Defendant argues that his incriminating statements to law enforcement during his interview at the police station should have been suppressed under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and under Article II, Section 15 of the New Mexico Constitution. Defendant contends that, although he signed an acknowledgment and waiver of his rights to remain silent, to have an attorney present, and to stop the interview at any time, his statements were coerced and involuntary because he”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “the CSPM and CSCM statutes specifically limit the application of such offenses to instances wherein defendant’s conduct in touching or penetrating the child is “unlawful” or “unlawfully” committed.... Neither CSPM nor CSCM prohibit the touching or penetration of the intimate parts of a minor for purposes of providing reasonable medical treatment to a child, nor do they criminalize nonabusive parental or custodial care.”
    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.