Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 215 CONN 739 - State v. Whitaker

State v. Whitaker’s Empirical Analysis

1990

Citation profile

82
cited by 82 later decisions
3
states following
September 2025
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 79 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 82 later decisions — most recently September 2025 · most notably State v. Montgomery (2000), In the Interest of L.J. (2013)

3 federal appellate · 79 state decisions

3501990200020102020decided

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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Johnson v. Zerbst · Jackson v. Denno · Rhode Island v. Innis · Colorado v. Connelly

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

  1. “(a) Any admission, confession or statement, written or oral, by a child shall be inadmissible in any proceeding for delinquency against the child making such admission, confession or statement unless made by such child in the presence of his parent or parents or guardian and after the parent or parents or guardian and child have been advised (1) of the child's right to retain counsel. . . . (2) of the child's right to refuse to make any statements . . . and (3) that any statements the child makes may be introduced into evidence against him . . .”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “a decision to expand the scope of the exclusionary rule of 46b-137 (a) requires the kind of interest balancing determination best left to the legislature. There are strong reasons to restrict the inadmissibility of confessions made in the absence of a parent to those of minors under sixteen, as the legislature has done in 46b-137 (a).”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “a per se rule of nonwaivability might actually frustrate a principal goal of juvenile law of encouraging children to accept responsibility for their transgressions and take an active role in their rehabilitation.”
    3 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.