Ray v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1967
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently August 2013
20 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 · Topolewski v. State · Birmingham v. State
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U. S. 436 , 86 Sup. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. (2d) 694, contrary to defendant’s assertion, is not applicable, since it applies only to cases commenced after June 13, 1966. The defendant would also invoke the protection of Escobedo v. Illinois (1964), 378 U. S. 478 , 84 Sup. Ct. 1758, 12 L. Ed. (2d) 977. We have, however, repeatedly stated that Escobedo is inapplicable unless the prisoner has requested counsel and that request has been denied. Simpson v. State (1966), 32 Wis. (2d) 195, 203, 145 N. W. (2d) 206 ; Neuenfeldt v. State (1965), 29 Wis. (2d) 20, 138 N. W. (2d) 252 ; State v. Burnett (1966), 30 Wis. (2d) 375, 141 N. W. (2d) 221 ; Phillips v. State (1966), 29 Wis. (2d) 521, 139 N. W. (2d) 41 ; State ex rel. Goodchild v. Burke (1965), 27 Wis. (2d) 244, 133 N. W. (2d) 753 . We have recently said in Holloway v. State (1966), 32 Wis. (2d) 559, 146 N. W. (2d) 441 , that our prior interpretations of Escobedo , limiting its applicability to its very facts, have not been altered by the subsequent decision in Miranda.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bradley 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.