Pirtle v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 225 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 236 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2019 · most notably Solem v. Stumes (1984), Ortiz v. State (1976)
5 federal appellate · 225 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Wong Sun v. United States · United States v. Wade · Mapp v. Ohio · Aguilar v. Texas
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 236 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a person who is asked to give consent to search while in police custody is entitled to the presence and advice of counsel prior to making the decision whether to give such consent.”
18 later decisions quote this exact passage“"[The most acceptable test of relevance is the question, does the evidence offered render the desired inference more probable than it would be without the evidence? McCormick, Evidence § 185 at 487. In Indiana 'evidence tending to prove a material fact is admissible, even though its tendency in that direction may be exceedingly slight.' Thomas v. State (1968), 251 Ind. 76, 80 , 238 N.E.2d 20, 22 ."”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Moore v. State · Faust v. State“'at any stage of the prosecution, formal or informal, in court or out, where counsel's absence might derogate from the accused's right to a fair trial'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Carter v. State · Koehler 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.