Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 245 SW3D 410 - Ramos v. State

Ramos v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2008

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
1
states following
February 2019
most recently cited

33 state decisions

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio))

Relationships

Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Rhode Island v. Innis · Malloy v. Hogan · Michigan v. Mosley · Dickerson v. United States

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

  1. “(1) he has the right to remain silent and not make any statement at all and that any statement he makes may be used against him at his trial; (2) any statement he makes may be used as evidence against him in court; (3) he has the right to have a lawyer present to advise him prior to and during any questioning; (4) if he is unable to employ a lawyer, he has the right to have a lawyer appointed to advise him prior to and during any questioning; and (5) he has the right to terminate the interview at any time ....”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “[Ramos’s] statement to [the officer] that he did not want to talk to him was an unambiguous, unequivocal, and unqualified assertion of the right to remain silent. A reasonable police officer in [the officer’s] position would not have found [Ramos’s] assertion of his right to be ambiguous. Any ambiguity in [Ramos’s] other statement to [the officer], that he did not want to talk about “it” anymore, was, in context, entirely irrelevant.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.