290 Or. App. 880 - State v. Schmidtke’s Empirical Analysis
2018
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
January 2019
most recently cited
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Devenpeck v. Alford · Davis v. United States · Murray v. Truly · State v. Ehly · State v. Roble-Baker
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Under Article I, section 12, an interrogation does not include questions 'normally attendant to arrest and custody.' " Schmidtke , 290 Or. App. at 885 , 417 P.3d 563 (quoting State v. Cunningham , 179 Or. App. 498 , 501-03, 40 P.3d 535 , rev. den. , 334 Or. 327 , 52 P.3d 435 (2002) ). 3 This court, in Cunningham , adopted the "attendant to arrest”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“officer's statement merely informing defendant of the criminal activity for which the officer was investigating and detaining defendant was not designed to elicit an incriminatory response or a statement that, by its very nature, evidenced an investigatory purpose.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Consequently, under Article I, section 12, the police must give a defendant who is subject to custodial interrogation Miranda -like warnings prior to interrogation.”
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.