Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 215 Kan. 28 - State v. Wilson

State v. Wilson’s Empirical Analysis

1974

Citation profile

56
cited by 56 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
February 2025
most recently cited

54 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 56 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2025 · most notably North Carolina v. Butler (1979), State v. Pyle (1975)

54 state decisions

300197419801990200020102020decided

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 · Lawrence Metze v. New York · Abel v. United States · Alabama v. United States · 41 Ill. 2d 177 - The People v. Speck

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

  1. ““. . . Defendant admits the Miranda warning was given and acknowledged by him prior to his inculpatory statements. Defendant’s argument seems to be that the arresting officers should have done more than merely give him the Miranda warning and should have asked him specifically if he wanted to exercise any of his rights after the warning had been given. This argument is untenable. Defendant gave an unequivocal ‘Yes’ response when asked if he understood his rights. He makes no claim that he was coerced or that his statements that the gun was in the river were given otherwise than voluntarily.” (p. 30.)”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““In a criminal prosecution an offer by the defendant to stipulate remains merely an offer unless accepted by the prosecution.” Syl. ¶ 4. “In a criminal prosecution the making of an admission by the defendant does not bar the state from proving the fact independently as though no admission had been made.” Syl. ¶ 5.”
    1 later decision 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.