15 Or. App. 536 - State v. Corbin’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
16
cited by 16 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
February 1989
most recently cited
2 federal appellate · 10 state decisions
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he psychiatrist examining the defendant for the state is for all purposes an officer of the state and no different than any police officer when questioning a defendant. The key reason for requiring that the psychiatrist repeat such a [Miranda ] warning is to dispel any possibility that the defendant may believe that statements made to the psychiatrist would not or could not be used in court against him. The reasons for this possible misapprehension lie in the vagueness of what is protected by the confidentiality of the doctor-patient relationship. Even more compelling is the need to dispel any belief that statements made to the psychiatrist would be for the defendant’s own good. The defendant must be aware that the psychiatrist is employed by his adversary and is not primarily his healer. State v. Corbin, 15 Or.App. 536 , 516 P.2d 1314, 1318-19 , later app. 22 Or.App. 505 , 539 P.2d 1113 (1973).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In Shepard v. Bowe, 250 Or. 288 , 442 P.2d 238 (1968), the court held that a defendant, being examined pursuant to court order after raising the issue of insanity, could not be ordered to answer questions, the answers of which would be incriminating, nor could the court order defendant's attorney not be present at the examination. This decision is relevant here for the conclusion that the psychiatrist examining the defendant for the state is for all purposes an officer of the state and no different than any police officer when questioning a defendant. Therefore, a valid consent to a psychiatric examination may not be obtained without the defendant's knowingly and voluntarily waiving those rights enumerated in Miranda. [19]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Houston v. State
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.