Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2003 MT 61 - State v. Olson

State v. Olson’s Empirical Analysis

2003

Citation profile

58
cited by 58 later decisions
3
states following
June 2021
most recently cited

56 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently June 2021 · most notably State v. Reavley (2003), State v. Larson (2010)

56 state decisions

340200320102020decided

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 · Illinois v. Gates · Rhode Island v. Innis · State v. Van Kirk · State v. Elison

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. “[T]he prosecution may not use statements that stem from a custodial interrogation of a defendant unless the defendant is warned, prior to questioning, that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney. [Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 , 86 S. Ct. 1602, 1612 (1966).] These “warnings” are often referred to as Miranda warnings.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(1) place of the interrogation; (2) time of the interrogation; (3) persons present during the interrogation; (4) whether Miranda warnings were gratuitously given; (5) the length and mood of the interrogation; and (6) whether or not the suspect was arrested following the interrogation.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “any words or actions on the part of police (other than those normally attendant to arrest [or] custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.