State v. Bradley’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
111 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 111 later decisions — most recently March 2026 · most notably In Re Interest of RG (1991), State v. Bjorklund (2000)
111 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 · Sheppard v. Maxwell · Missouri v. Continential Insurance Cos. · Estes v. Texas · Murphy v. Florida
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 111 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Before it is necessary to grant a mistrial due to prosecutorial misconduct, the defendant must show that ‘a substantial miscarriage of justice has actually occurred.’ ”... Similar standards are applicable where one seeks a new trial by raising on appeal the issue of prosecutorial misconduct. . .. [I]f there is some incorrect conduct in a jury trial which, on review of the entire record, did not materially influence the jury in its verdict adverse to a substantial right of the defendant, the error is harmless.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“While it is true that a party is entitled to have reported any comments made by a trial judge ... it is, in the final analysis, in the absence of any prejudicial comment’s being made in the presence of the jury, the correctness and effect of any questioned ruling which controls the disposition of an appeal. . . . Here, there is no claim the trial judge made any prejudicial comment in the presence of the jury, and the record is otherwise adequate to address the effect of the rulings [the defendant] questions. Thus, he has shown no prejudice by the district court’s failure to provide him with the record he requested.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““incarceration does not ipso facto render an interrogation custodial, Cervantes v. Walker, 589 F.2d 424, 427 (9th Cir.1978), cited in Flittie v. Solem, 775 F.2d 933, 944 (8th Cir.1985) (en banc). In all cases, we must consider the totality of the circumstances, including the individual’s ‘freedom to leave the scene and the purpose, place and length’ of the questioning. [Citation omitted.] When an individual is incarcerated for an unrelated offense, this requires some restriction on his freedom of action in connection with the interrogation itself. See Cervantes, 589 F.2d at 427-28 .””
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.