Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 249 Mont. 82 - State v. Imlay

State v. Imlay’s Empirical Analysis

1991

Citation profile

85
cited by 85 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
15
states following
February 2026
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 2 district · 72 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 85 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2026 · most notably State v. Fuller (1996), Bankes v. Simmons (1998)

4 federal appellate · 2 district · 72 state decisions — followed in 15 states

3701991200020102020decided

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 National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. Federal Power Commission · Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad v. United States · Scott v. United States · Thomas v. United States · United States v. Garcia

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

  1. “[B]y admitting guilt in this case, the defendant would have to abandon his right guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment, not only as to the crime for which he has been convicted, but also to the crime of perjury [since he had testified in is own defense at trial and denied committing the offense with which he was charged.]”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[T]he better reasoned decisions are those decisions which protect the defendant's constitutional right against self-incrimination, and which prohibit augmenting a defendant's sentence because he refuses to confess to a crime or invokes his privilege against self-incrimination.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The key to this rests on whether the defendant was compelled to testify or was merely required to make a “tactical” decision regarding his parole. Here, defendant’s decision to remain silent is a tactical one, not a compelled one. Defense counsel argues that, in reality, defendant’s testimony is in fact compelled since it is a prerequisite for parole. Furthermore, failure to admit to [the crime of which he was convicted] will not result in certain penalty to [the] defendant, it will only result to preserve his current ineligible parole status. . . . [F]ailure to satisfactorily complete the sex offender program . . . will not result in a penalty but will merely result in defendant’s continued ineligibility for parole.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.