Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 1992 Ohio 64 - State v. Knuckles

State v. Knuckles’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

52
cited by 52 later decisions
1
states following
September 2025
most recently cited

51 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently September 2025 · most notably State v. Treesh (2001), State v. Moore (1998)

51 state decisions

2001992200020102020decided

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 · Edwards v. Arizona · Rhode Island v. Innis · McNeil v. Wisconsin · Smith v. Illinois

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

  1. “`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 from the suspect.'”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[o]nce an accused invokes his right to counsel, all further custodial interrogation must cease and may not be resumed in the absence of counsel unless the *Page 14 accused thereafter effects a valid waiver or himself renews communication with the police.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Id. It is not necessary to phrase the communication in the form of a question to constitute an interrogation. See State v. Knuckles , 65 Ohio St.3d 494 , 496 , 1992-Ohio-64 , 605 N.E.2d 54 .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.