144 Wis. 2d 272 - State v. Cunningham’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently July 2020 · most notably 167 Wis. 2d 672 - State v. Mitchell (1992), 223 Wis. 2d 331 - State v. Armstrong (1999)
31 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 · Rhode Island v. Innis · Malloy v. Hogan · Arizona v. Mauro · United States v. Gay
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.
“any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Morgan · State v. Hambly“whether an objective observer could foresee that the officer's conduct or words would elicit an incriminating response.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]f an objective observer (with the same knowledge of the suspect as the police officer) could, on the sole basis of hearing the officer's remarks or observing the officer's conduct, conclude that the officer's conduct or words would be likely to elicit an incriminating response, that is, could reasonably have had the force of a question on the suspect, then the conduct or words would constitute interrogation.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.