Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 263 Ind. 390 - Montes v. State

Montes v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1975

Citation profile

55
cited by 55 later decisions
1
states following
June 1999
most recently cited

48 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently June 1999 · most notably Ortiz v. State (1976), Lagenour v. State (1978)

48 state decisions

320197519801990decided

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 · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Bruton v. United States · Mapp v. Ohio

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

  1. ““Appellants freely chose to relinquish their right to remain silent and chose to subject themselves to the verbal inquiries of the police. So long as verbal inquiries involve no threats, promises, falsehoods, or the like, but are direct statements probing the suspect’s knowledge of relevant events, including inconsistencies in answers given, they do not, without additional circumstances indicating compulsion result in involuntary divulgence of information.” 263 Ind. at 402 , 332 N.E.2d 786 .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““We agree with appellants that the use of the lie detector shown here is a factor which must be weighed negatively in the determination of voluntariness. The State did not present testimony describing the conduct of the polygraph examination or explaining how the conclusions of the examiner were used in the questioning process. Without this evidence, the possibility that the State tricked appellants into confessing, by attributing qualities to the test results which did not exist, has not been dispelled. Prior to submitting to the tests, appellants claimed innocence. A short time after the testing period, both confessed.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “The question is whether, looking at all the circumstances, the confession was free and voluntary, and not induced by any violence, threats, promises, or other improper influence.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.