Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 285 F.2d 675 - Jackson v. United States

Jackson v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

285 F.2d 675 · 1960

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
3
states following
November 1980
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently November 1980

17 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

200196019701980decided

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 McNabb v. United States · Nardone v. United States · Mallory v. United States · Walder v. United States · United States v. Bayer

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

  1. ““ * * * the Supreme Court has made it clear that a challenged confession voluntarily given after fair warning may be competent. We have so decided as to a confession reaffirmed after judicial caution has been imparted. 24 ****** “ * * * the conditions which had prompted our earlier exclusion had been removed. We must view cumulatively the * * * series of warnings to Jackson. In the first place, the police had fully advised him of his rights before taking his written statement. The language prefacing the confession ‘cautioned the prisoner in almost the words of the Judges’ Rules of England.’ Next, on Sunday, he was cautioned pursuant to Rule 5 by Judge Fickling. Monday, he received emphasis of the benefits of the Rule at the hands of Judge Smith in the presence of his counsel. He had had the advantage of consultation with his own attorney who advised him of his right to remain silent. Finally, Jackson of his own free will had consented to the Tuesday interview, as he voluntarily signified in writing. He then talked to the detectives, saying exactly what he desired to say and no more. By that time he had been fully warned and his own statement discloses he was entirely aware of what he was saying.” 25”
    2 later decisions 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.