Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 222 A2D 781 - Weekley v. State

Weekley v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1966

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
4
states following
March 1995
most recently cited

1 district · 17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently March 1995

1 district · 17 state decisions

901966197019801990decided

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 · Jackson v. Denno · Irvin v. Dowd · Sheppard v. Maxwell

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

  1. “The qualifications of grand jurors are fixed by law. . . . The accused may attack the legal qualifications of a grand juror, either by challenging an individual juror on the ground that the jury is not legally qualified, or by motion to dismiss the indictment because of a lack of legal qualifications of an individual juror. [Emphasis in original; footnotes omitted.] Challenges for bias, or for any cause other than lack of legal qualifications, are unknown as concerns grand jurors. No provision is made for peremptory challenges of grand jurors and no such challenges are permitted. Likewise no voir dire examination exists in respect to grand jurors. In other words, the status of a member of a grand jury may not be questioned except for lack of legal qualifications. The basic theory of the functions of a grand jury does not require that grand jurors should be impartial and unbiased. . A grand jury does not pass on the guilt or innocence of the defendant, but merely determines whether he should be brought to trial. It is purely an accusatory body. . . [Id. at 20-21; emphasis supplied.]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““ * * * The question before us is whether the statements were made voluntarily; if they were, failure to provide counsel or to inform defendants of their right to remain silent does not require a reversal.””
    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.