State v. Rouse’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

cited by 14 later decisions

states following

December 2003

most recently cited

14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently December 2003

14 state decisions

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 Massiah v. United States · M. Morrin & Son Co. v. Burgess Construction Co. · 22 Cal. 3d 333 - People v. Drew · Tilton v. Richardson · National Labor Relations Board v. Burns International Security Services, Inc.

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

““Before examining the question it should be noted the exclusionary rule declared in Massiah [v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964)] does not apply to voluntary statements of a defendant which are made to private citizens. (People v. Smith, 5 Ill. App. 3d 642 , 283 N.E.2d 736 .) It has been held that if a defendant is injudicious in his conversations with fellow prisoners and the latter without prior arrangements with the police take it upon themselves to tell police officials of these conversations such conversations are admissible in evidence. (United States v. Aloisio, 440 F.2d 705 [7th Cir. 1971], cert. den. 404 U.S. 824 , 30 L.Ed.2d 51 , 92 S.Ct. 49 ; United States v. Casteel, 476 F.2d 152 [10th Cir. 1973]; Milani v. Pate, 425 F.2d 6 [7th Cir. 1970] cert den. 400 U.S. 867 , 27 L.Ed.2d 107 , 91 S.Ct. 109 .)” 218 Kan. at 361 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. State v. Miesbauer

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.