Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 250 La. 765 - State v. Andrus

State v. Andrus’s Empirical Analysis

1967

Citation profile

151
cited by 151 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
5
states following
December 2011
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 147 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 151 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2011 · most notably Schneckloth v. Bustamonte (1973), State v. Smith (1971)

2 federal appellate · 147 state decisions

1100196719701980199020002010decided

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 · Johnson v. State of New Jersey · Ker v. State of California · Rios v. United States · United States v. Mitchell

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

  1. “"The term `admission' is applied to those matters of fact which do not involve criminal intent; the term `confession' is applied only to an admission of guilt, not to an acknowledgment of facts merely tending to establish guilt."”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “"[I]dentity of the offense is an essential element in support of a plea of autre fois [double jeopardy]. By this is not meant formal, technical, absolute identity; the rule is that there must be only substantial identity, that the evidence necessary to support the second indictment would have been sufficient for the first." (emphasis added)”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Before what purposes to be a confession can be introduced in evidence, it must be affirmatively shown that it was free and voluntary, and not made under the influence of fear, duress, intimidation, menaces, threats, inducements or promises.”
    2 later decisions 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.