Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 180 LED2D 310 - J. D. B. v. North Carolina

J. D. B. v. North Carolina’s Empirical Analysis

2011

Citation profile

248
cited by 248 later decisions
35
states following
December 2025
most recently cited

41 federal appellate · 10 district · 150 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 248 later decisions — most recently December 2025 · most notably Morgan v. Swanson (2011), State v. Long (2014)

41 federal appellate · 10 district · 150 state decisions — followed in 35 states

215020112020decided

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 · Gall v. United States · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Berkemer v. McCarty · Eddings v. Oklahoma

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 248 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Two discrete inquiries are essential to the determination: first, what were the circumstances surrounding the interrogation; and second, given those circumstances, would a reasonable person have felt he or she was at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave. Once the scene is set and the players’ lines and actions are reconstructed, the court must apply an objective test to resolve the ultimate inquiry: was there a formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with formal arrest.””
    18 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “A child's age is far more than a chronological fact. It is a fact that generates commonsense conclusions about behavior and perception. Such conclusions apply broadly to children as a class. And, they are self-evident to anyone who was a child once himself, including any police officer or judge. Time and again, this Court has drawn these commonsense conclusions for itself. We have observed that children generally are less mature and responsible than adults; that they often lack the experience, perspective, and judgment to recognize and avoid choices that could be detrimental to them; that they are more vulnerable or susceptible to outside pressures than adults. Addressing the specific context of police interrogation, we have observed that events that would leave a man cold and unimpressed can overawe and overwhelm a lad in his early teens. Describing no one child in particular, these observations restate what any parent knows-indeed, what any person knows-about children generally.”
    13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[i]n some circumstances, a child's age 'would have affected how a reasonable person' in the suspect's position 'would perceive his or her freedom to leave.' " J.D.B. v. North Carolina , 564 U.S. 261 , 270, 271-272, 131 S.Ct. 2394 , 180 L.Ed.2d 310 (2011), quoting Stansbury v. California , 511 U.S. 318 , 325, 114 S.Ct. 1526 , 128 L.Ed.2d 293 (1994). The Court held that, "so long as the child's age was known to the officer at the time of police questioning, or would have been objectively apparent to a reasonable officer, its inclusion in the custody analysis is consistent with the objective nature of that test.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.