Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2004 ND 157 - State v. Mitzel

State v. Mitzel’s Empirical Analysis

2004

Citation profile

32
cited by 32 later decisions
2
states following
December 2024
most recently cited

31 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably State v. Woinarowicz (2006), State v. Graf (2006)

31 state decisions

150200420102020decided

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 Payton v. New York · United States v. Watson · United States v. Miller · United States v. McCaleb · Fletcher v. Town of Clinton

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

  1. “(1) the characteristics and condition of the accused at the time of the [consent], including age, sex, race, education level, physical or mental condition, and prior experience with police; and (2) the details of the setting in which the [consent] was obtained, including the duration and conditions of detention, police attitude toward the defendant, and the diverse pressures that sap the accused’s powers of resistance or self control.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “the police received a call from a neighbor who reported banging and yelling coming from inside Mitzel’s apartment. There was no disturbance in progress when the officers arrived, and Mitzel informed the police that he and his girlfriend had had a fight and that they were both fine. There was no testimony that Mitzel was trying to prevent the police from entering the apartment or that'he was being evasive. There was no testimony that Mitzel had any violent .tendencies, and there were no initial signs of intoxication. There was no testimony to indicate that Mitzel was not calm, and there was no evidence of an altercation, such as blood, bruising, or raw knuckles. Mitzel asked whether the officers wanted to talk to his girlfriend, and he went to get her.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “there is sufficient competent evidence fairly capable of supporting the trial court's findings, and the decision is not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.”
    1 later decision 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.