Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 19 OHIOST2D 55 - State v. Butler

State v. Butler’s Empirical Analysis

1969

Citation profile

58
cited by 58 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
6
states following
December 2023
most recently cited

56 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 58 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2023 · most notably Harris v. New York (1971), 44 Cal. 3d 309 - People v. May (1988)

56 state decisions

2201969197019801990200020102020decided

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. State of New Jersey · Klopfer v. State of North Carolina · Spencer v. State of Texas a Bell · Walder v. United States

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

  1. “An accused is not *Page 7 entitled to a discharge for delay in bringing him to trial unless it appears that he resisted postponement, demanded a trial, or made some effort to procure a speedier trial than the state accorded him.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
    e.g. State v. Huber, 07-Ca-88 (4-3-2009) · State v. Huber, 07-Ca-122 (4-3-2009)
  2. “Affirmative action on the part of an accused in the nature of a demand to be tried is necessary to invoke the constitutional protection.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
    e.g. State v. Huber, 07-Ca-88 (4-3-2009) · State v. Simons, Unpublished Decision (11-12-2004)
  3. ““The protection against compulsory self-incrimination does not operate to exclude the prosecution’s use of voluntary statements of an accused, made to police without Miranda warnings, for the purpose only of impeaching his credibility on cross-examination.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
    e.g. State v. Lancaster

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.