King v. Pinto’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently March 1989
1 district · 3 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Carroll v. United States · Mapp v. Ohio · Brinegar v. United States · Townsend v. Sain
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The ruling of Escobedo does not require the presence of legal counsel at the moment of arrest and seizure. In any event, the present petitioner at the very moment of arrest was promptly and specifically advised of his rights to counsel, to remain silent, and to deny the request of the arresting officers for permission to search his apartment. He relinquished known constitutional rights.” ( 256 F.Supp. at 529 .)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““It must be remembered that not all searches and seizures are prohibited by the Constitution, only those which are unreasonable. At the core of the Constitutional Standard in the law of search and seizure is ‘reasonableness.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Downey“It is sufficient if the valid arrest and search are reasonably contemporaneous, that is, they occur as parts of a single transaction, as connected units of an integrated incident”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gaston v. State
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.