30 Kan. App. 2d 988 - State v. Coleman’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
3
cited by 3 later decisions
2
states following
May 2003
most recently cited
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Apprendi v. New Jersey · Johnson v. Zerbst · Edwards v. Arizona · Rhode Island v. Innis
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[Tjhis interview on October 18 was essentially initiated through the contacts that Tiffany Mayson and perhaps this aunt had with Ms. Parker. . . . Detective Jacob testified and his testimony was supported by the testimony of Detective Nevil, that they went to that home to basically inform Ms. Mayson of the new attorney, of the different attorney, it is clear that this whole situation had its genesis in the actions of both Mr. Coleman and Tiffany. “They went to that home not to solicit a statement from Mr. Coleman. I am convinced from the evidence that they went there solely in an investigative manner or whatever, but it was not to solicit a statement from Mr. Coleman. I am convinced from the evidence, clearly convinced from the evidence that they did nothing improper in their conversation with Ms. Mayson. ... I find that Mr. Coleman on his own solicited the contact . . ., but all the events . . . were initiated by Mr. Coleman and ... I find that the statement is admissible.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Coleman
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.