James v. Marshall’s Empirical Analysis
322 F.3d 103 · 2003
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently January 2020
8 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 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. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Williams v. Taylor · Edwards v. Arizona · Michigan v. Mosley · Davis v. United States · Smith v. Illinois
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“when a suspect makes an ambiguous or equivocal statement it will often be good police practice for the interviewing officers to clarify whether or not he actually wants an attorney.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Pena v. State · Peña v. State“[Officer]: Do you wish to make a statement at this time? James: Nope. [Officer]: Okay. Can I talk to you about what happened earlier tonight? James: Yup.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hopper v. Dretke · Pena v. State“Only then does the questioning about the events continue. This is precisely the kind of”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Pena v. State · Peña 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.