State v. Presha’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
2 district · 91 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 93 later decisions — most recently September 2025 · most notably In Re Registrant J.G. (2001), State v. Stott (2002)
2 district · 91 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 · Gault · Fare v. Michael C. · Haley v. Ohio · Gallegos v. State of Colorado
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 93 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[b]y "highly significant factor" we mean that courts should give that factor added weight when balancing it against all other factors. By elevating the significance of the adult's role in the overall balance, we are satisfied that the rights of juveniles will be protected in a manner consistent with constitutional guarantees and modern realities. [ Ibid. ]”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[i]n determining whether a suspect's confession is the product of free will, courts traditionally assess the totality of circumstances surrounding the arrest and interrogation[.]”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]hen younger offenders are in custody, the parent serves as a buffer between the juvenile, who is entitled to certain protections, and the police, whose investigative function brings the officers necessarily in conflict with the juvenile's legal interests. Parents are in a position to assist juveniles in understanding their rights, acting intelligently in waiving those rights, and otherwise remaining calm in the face of an interrogation. [ Id. at 315, 748 A. 2d 1108 (citing Gallegos, supra, 370 U.S. at 54 , 82 S.Ct. at 1212-13 , 8 L.Ed. 2d at 329 ).]”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.