Murphy v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
139 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 142 later decisions — most recently June 1994 · most notably Drollinger v. State (1980), Gardner v. State (1979)
139 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 · Carnley v. Cochran · Patterson v. State · Ortiz v. State · Pirtle v. State
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 142 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The question of the admissibility of a confession is to be controlled by determining, from the totality of the circumstances, whether or not it was made voluntarily. Works v. State, (1977) Ind., 362 N.E.2d 144 ; Ortiz v. State, (1976) Ind., 356 N.E.2d 1188 . The same test determines whether a waiver of the Miranda rights has occurred. Ortiz, supra; Nacoff v. State, (1971) 256 Ind. 97 , 267 N.E.2d 165 . We review these questions on appeal as we do other sufficiency matters. We do not weigh the evidence, but rather determine whether there is substantial probative evidence to support the trial court’s finding. Murphy v. State, (1977) Ind., 369 N.E.2d 411 . This court will not ordinarily disturb a trial court’s ruling as to the admissibility of a confession when that ruling is based on conflicting evidence. Timm v. State, (1976) Ind., 356 N.E.2d 222 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Chambers v. State“[dlelay in presenting a defendant before a magistrate does not make a confession inadmissible as a matter of law, but is rather one factor to be considered in the question of admissibility. Murphy v. State, (1977) 267 Ind. 184, 193 , 369 N.E.2d 411, 415 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Holleman 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.