Sims v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 48 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently October 2018 · most notably Jones v. State (1995), Smith v. State (1982)
2 federal appellate · 48 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 · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Simmons v. United States · Stovall v. Denno · 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 50 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.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“recognized the right of those in custody to have the advice of counsel at the point where a consent to search is requested, and expressly and clearly imposed upon the State the burden in court of demonstrating an explicit waiver of such right as a condition to introducing the fruits of such searches.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“our decision in Pirtle is based upon the long recognized right of an accused in this state to have counsel at all critical stages following the point of arrest. Suter v. State, (1949) 227 Ind. 648 , 88 N.E.2d 386 ; Bearing v. State, (1950) 229 Ind. 131 , 95 N.E.2d 832 ; Art. I, § 13, Indiana Constitution. As can be seen, it is not based solely upon the Fourth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. ... Under • Indiana law, to confer a right by law, is also to confer everything necessary for its protection, although no specific mention of added measures is made. Batchelor v. State, (1920) 189 Ind. 69 , 125 N.E. 773 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ackerman 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.