State v. Taylor’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably State v. Ruebke (1987), State v. Garcia (1983)
32 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Rhode Island v. Innis · Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City · Country Club Home, Inc. v. Harder · State v. Weigel
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The admissibility of appellant’s statements depends upon whether they were the result of a ‘custodial interrogation’ or an ‘investigatory interrogation.’ A custodial interrogation, which requires that Miranda warnings be given, involves ‘significant restraints on [a subject’s] freedom of movement which are imposed by some law enforcement agency.’ State v. Greenberg, 4 Kan. App. 2d 403, 405, 607 P.2d 530 , rev. denied 228 Kan. 807 (1980); State v. Brunner, 211 Kan. 596 , Syl. ¶ 2, 507 P.2d 233 (1973). In State v. Bohanan, 220 Kan. 121, 128 , 551 P.2d 828 (1976), it was recognized, ‘that general on-the-scene questioning as to facts surrounding a crime or other general questioning of citizens in the fact finding process does not constitute custodial interrogation requiring a Miranda warning.’ An investigatory interrogation, requiring no warning, is defined as ‘the questioning of persons by law enforcement officers in a routine manner in an investigation which has not reached an accusatory stage and where such persons are not in legal custody or deprived of their freedom of action in any significant way.’ 220 Kan. at 128 .” 231 Kan. at 172-73 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Roadenbaugh“reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Palacio
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.