State v. Cripps’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
67 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently September 2004 · most notably 350 So. 2d 615 - State v. Sheppard (1977), State v. Richmond (1973)
67 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
Relies on Wong Sun v. United States · Witherspoon v. Illinois · Raffel v. United States · Eubanks v. State of Louisiana · Deutschmann 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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"A general venire, a grand jury venire, or petit jury venire shall not be set aside for any reason unless fraud has been practiced or some great wrong committed that would work irreparable injury to the defendant."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"Article 230 C.Cr.P. merely provides that an arrested person has the right to procure counsel and to use a telephone or send a messenger for the purpose of communicating with counsel and his friends. Appellants were given the Miranda warnings and were fully informed of their rights in this case. They had the statutory right to use a telephone, had such a request been made. But they made no request. The specious argument seems to be that the police should have particularly informed them of such right and failure to do so renders the confessions tainted. However, the statute does not require this and neither does the Miranda decision." State v. Cripps , 259 La. 403 , 250 So.2d 382 , 388-89 (1971).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“"We assume the framers of the Miranda bill of rights must have believed the use of the telephone to be so commonplace in this country that even the most ignorant arrestee, having been informed of his rights and desiring to communicate with counsel or friends, could make a simple request for such use. At any rate, Article 230 C.Cr.P. does not require the custodian of the arrestee to inform the latter of his right to use the telephone and this Court is not inclined to amend the statute in this respect believing that this is within the sphere of legislative action." Cripps , 259 La. at 419 -422 , 250 So.2d at 389 , n. 1.”
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.