Giuffre v. Bissell’s Empirical Analysis
31 F.3d 1241 · 1994
Citation profile
40 federal appellate · 10 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 100 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2024 · most notably Johnson v. Jones (1995), Chavez v. Martinez (2003)
40 federal appellate · 10 district · 2 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Anderson v. Creighton · Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Mitchell v. Forsyth
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 100 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Even assuming that [plaintiffs] confession should have been excluded from the evidence at his trial, the court cannot find that any rational argument can be made in support of this civil rights claim for damages. The Constitution and laws of the United States do not guarantee [plaintiff] the right to Miranda warnings. They only guarantee him the right to be free from self-incrimination. The Miranda decision does not even suggest that police officers who fail to advise an arrested person of his rights are subject to civil liability; it requires, at most, only that any confession made in the absence of such advice of rights be excluded from evidence. No rational argument can be made in support of the notion that the failure to give Miranda warnings subjects a police officer to liability under the Civil Rights Act.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he dissenting judges in Cooper presented a persuasive argument that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination is not violated until evidence is admitted in a criminal case.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Riley v. Dorton · Lingler v. Fechko“sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.”
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.