Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2008 WI 10 - State v. Hambly

State v. Hambly’s Empirical Analysis

2008

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
6
states following
August 2025
most recently cited

34 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently August 2025 · most notably State v. Appleby (2009), 399 Ill. App. 3d 1073 - People v. SCHUNING (2010)

34 state decisions

270200820102020decided

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 · Escobedo v. Illinois · Rhode Island v. Innis · Kirby 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “We conclude that the Miranda safeguards come into play whenever a person in custody is subjected to either express questioning or its functional equivalent. That is to say, the term "interrogation" under Miranda refers not only to express questioning, but also to 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. The latter portion of this definition focuses primarily upon the perceptions of the suspect, rather than the intent of the police. This focus reflects the fact that the Miranda safeguards were designed to vest a suspect in custody with an added measure of protection against coercive police practices, without regard to objective proof of the underlying intent of the police. A practice that the police should know is reasonably likely to evoke an incriminating response from a suspect thus amounts to interrogation.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “his desire to deal with the police only through counsel, [he] is not subject to further interrogation by the authorities until counsel has been made available to him, unless the accused himself initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “evince[] a willingness and a desire for a generalized discussion about the investigation,”
    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.