244 Ga. App. 622 - State v. Stinson’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
November 2010
most recently cited
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Kastigar v. United States · Garrity v. State of New Jersey · Vansant v. State · Commonwealth v. Harvey · 235 Mich. App. 695 - People v. Coutu
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]n Friedrick, the D.C. Circuit held that statements should be excluded under Garrity , if (1) the defendant subjectively believes that he must answer questions or lose his job, and (2) this subjective belief is objectively reasonable. Friedrick, supra, 842 F2d at 395. Courts applying the Friedrick analysis emphasize that a subjective belief cannot be considered objectively reasonable unless it is based upon actions taken by the state. See, e.g., United States v. Camacho, 739 FSupp. 1504, 1515 (S.D. Fla. 1990). In other words, the state must play a role “in creating the impression that the refusal to give a statement will be met with termination of employment.” Colorado v. Sapp, 934 P2d 1367, 1373 (Col. 1997).”
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.