Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 125 NH 1 - State v. Elbert

State v. Elbert’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

51
cited by 51 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
May 2013
most recently cited

7 district · 42 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 51 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2013 · most notably Harmelin v. Michigan (1991), State v. Bruneau (1988)

7 district · 42 state decisions

2601984199020002010decided

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 · Johnson v. Zerbst · Edwards v. Arizona · Solem v. Helm · Brewer v. Williams

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.

  1. ““[t]here must be not only an intention to kill, but there must also be a deliberate and premeditated design to kill. Such design must precede the killing by some appreciable space of time. But the time need not be long. It must be sufficient for some reflection and consideration upon the matter, for choice to kill or not to kill, and for the formation of a definite purpose to kill. And when the time is sufficient for this, it matters not how brief it is. The human mind acts with celerity which it is sometimes impossible to measure; and whether a deliberate and premeditated design to kill was formed, must be determined from all the circumstances of the case.””
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[O]nce a defendant has invoked his right to counsel by declining to speak to the police without a lawyer present, the police must refrain from or stop interrogation, and scrupulously honor the defendant's right to stop it.”
    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.