Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 204 Ind. 281 - Ross v. State

Ross v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1932

Citation profile

62
cited by 62 later decisions
7
states following
January 2014
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 52 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently January 2014 · most notably Hitch v. State (1972), Smith v. United States (1950)

6 federal appellate · 52 state decisions

150193219401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Coleman v. State · Henning v. State · Chesterfield v. State · Townsend v. State · Bessette v. State

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

  1. ““The essence of the privilege is freedom from testimonial compulsion. In the case of O’Brien v. State (1890), 125 Ind. 38 , 25 N. E. 137 , 9 L. R. A. 323, this court recognized and made the distinction between compulsory self-incrimination and compulsory submission to treatment which furnishes evidence for the purpose of identification of an accused. In that case an officer testified as to marks and scars found upon the defendant in an examination of the defendant’s person. At the time of the examination the defendant was being held in jail as a fugitive suspect and the examination was made forcibly by officers to determine whether the defendant was the person named in the affidavit.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Looking back at the history of the privilege [against compelled self-incrimination] (ante, § 2250) and the spirit of the struggle by which its establishment came about, the object of the protection seems plain. It is the employment of legal process to extract from the person's own lips an admission of his guilt, which will thus take the place of other 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.