Commonwealth v. Robinson’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
58 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently July 2017 · most notably 230 Pa. Super. 563 - Commonwealth v. Kloch (1974), 98 Wis. 2d 663 - State v. Albright (1980)
58 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 · Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Wade · Schmerber v. State of California · Griffin v. California
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is clear that the protection of the privilege reaches an accused’s communications, whatever form they might take, and the compulsion of responses which are also, communications, for example, compliance with a subpoena to produce one’s papers. Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 [ 6 S.Ct. 524 , 29 L.Ed. 746 (1886) ]. On the other hand, both federal and state courts have usually held that it offers no protection against compulsion to submit to fingerprinting, photographing, or measurements, to ■write or speak for identification, to appear in court, to stand, to assume a stance, to walk, or to make a particular gesture. The distinction which has emerged, often expressed in different ways, is that the privilege is a bar against compelling “communications” or “testimony,” but that compulsion which makes a suspect or accused the source of “real or physical evidence” does not violate it. Id. at 763-764 , 86 S.Ct. at 1832 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““(1) Upon the trial of any criminal action or proceeding arising out of acts alleged to have been committed by any person while driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, evidence of the amount of alcohol in the person’s blood at the time of the act alleged as shown by a chemical analysis of his blood, breath, or urine is admissible. “(2) If the person under arrest refused to submit to the test as hereinabove provided, proof of refusal shall be admissible in any criminal action or proceeding arising out of acts alleged to have been committed while the person was driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle upon the public highways while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Jackson“"Where a defendant is being accused of intoxication and is not intoxicated, the taking of a reasonably reliable chemical test for intoxication should establish that he is not intoxicated. On the other hand, if he is intoxicated, the taking of such a test will probably establish that he is intoxicated. . . . Thus, it is reasonable to infer that a refusal to take such a test indicates the defendant's fear of the results of the test and his consciousness of guilt. . . ." 229 Pa.Super. at 148 , 324 A.2d at 450 , quoting City of Westerville v. Cunningham, 15 Ohio St.2d 121, 122 , 440 Ohio Ops.2d 119, 119-20, 239 N.E.2d 40, 41 (1968).”
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.