State v. Barnes’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
58 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently April 2008 · most notably State v. Jeffers (1983), State v. Rodriguez (1998)
58 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 Oregon v. Mathiason · State v. Hatton · State v. McLain · State v. Woolery · State v. Ritchey
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Lapse of time is only one factor to be considered. If the totality of the circumstances indicate that the statement was made in a state of shock or his demeanor and actions had been altered, it is admissible even though not made immediately after the event."”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“Any interview of one suspected of a crime by a police officer will have coercive aspects to it, simply by virtue of the fact that the police officer is part of a law enforcement system which may ultimately cause the suspect to be charged with a crime. But police officers are not required to administer Miranda warnings to everyone whom they question. Nor is the requirement of warnings to be imposed because the questioning takes place at the station house, or because the questioned person is one whom the police suspect. Miranda warnings are required only where there has been such a restriction oh a person’s freedom as to render him “in custody.” It was that sort of coercive environment to which Miranda by its terms was made applicable, and to which it is limited.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Perea · State v. Carter“An inherently dangerous weapon is: “any instrument which, when used in the ordinary manner contemplated by its design and construction, will, or is likely to, cause death or great bodily harm.” State v. Gordon, 120 Ariz. 172, 176 , 584 P.2d 1163, 1167 (1978).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Hartford
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.