Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 216 Kan. 711 - State v. Carson

State v. Carson’s Empirical Analysis

1975

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
1
states following
February 2013
most recently cited

28 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently February 2013 · most notably State v. Costa (1980), State v. Fritschen (1990)

28 state decisions

8019751980199020002010decided

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 · Escobedo v. Illinois · Orozco v. Texas · Industrial National Bank of Rhode Island v. Wingate Corp. · United States v. Hall

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

  1. ““The question whether an investigation has focused on a suspect as derived from Escobedo [citation omitted] is not the wholly determinative test whether the suspect is in custody. The fact the suspect is the focus of the investigation, standing alone, does not trigger the need- for a Miranda warning [citations omitted]. Nonetheless, the fact the investigation has focused on a particular individual is still frequently one of the determinative factors in arriving at a decision whether a Miranda warning is required.” 216 Kan. at 715 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Circumstances bearing on whether a person questioned was subjected to ‘custodial interrogation’ requiring Miranda warnings can be classified under the following general headings: (1) The nature of the interrogator; (2) the nature of the suspect; (3) the time and place of the interrogation; (4) the nature of the interrogation; and (5) the progress of the investigation at the time of interrogation.” 216 Kan. 711 , 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.