Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 231 Miss. 445 - Ladner v. State

Ladner v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1957

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
2
states following
August 1992
most recently cited

21 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently August 1992

21 state decisions

8019571960197019801990decided

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 2 Ill. 2d 323 - People v. Hiller · Commonwealth v. Tolliver · Brown v. State · Barnes v. State · State v. Quilliam

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

  1. “... The reasons for excluding as evidence an involuntary confession apply with equal force when the confession is offered for purposes of impeachment. The confession is just as prejudicial and just as incompetent when offered in the one as in the other. The fact that the defendant takes the stand in his own behalf does not make incompetent evidence admissible against him. In principle the State should not be permitted to make any use whatever of an involuntary confession... .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “We have held in several decisions, notably Barnes v. State, 199 Miss. 86 , 23 So.2d 405 , that the influences and inducements which rendered a previous confession inadmissible as not being free and voluntary are presumed to continue in operation at the time of a subsequent confession made shortly thereafter, unless such influences are clearly shown to have been removed or the promises and inducements have been withdrawn. Barnes v. State, supra, is directly in point here as no attempt was made by the State to meet the requirements for the admission of a second confession made shortly after a previous one which was not admissible because not voluntary.”
    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.