State v. Easler’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 94 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 102 later decisions — most recently March 2022 · most notably Ervin v. State (1999), In Re the Care & Treatment of Matthews (2001)
5 federal appellate · 94 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
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Blockburger v. United States · Rhode Island v. Innis · Benton v. Maryland · Berkemer v. McCarty
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 102 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The circumstances of aggravation include: use of a deadly weapon, infliction of serious bodily injury, intent to commit a felony, disparity in age, physical condition or sex, indecent liberties, purposeful infliction of shame, resistance of lawful authority, and others.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Miranda warnings are required for official interrogations only when a suspect “has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.” This language has been interpreted as meaning formal arrest or detention associated with a formal arrest. In determining whether a suspect is “in custody,” the totality of the circumstances, including the individual’s freedom to leave the scene and the purpose, place and length of the questioning must be considered. The fact the investigation has focused on the suspect does not trigger the need for Miranda warnings unless he is in custody. Miranda warnings were “not intended to hamper the traditional function of police officers investigating a crime.” The relevant inquiry is whether a reasonable man in the suspect’s position would have understood himself to be in custody. The initial determination of whether an individual was in custody depends on the objective circumstances of the interrogation, not the subjective views harbored by either the interrogating officers or the person being questioned.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Kerr“the test to determine whether these are two offenses or only one is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Stevenson 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.