Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 338 Ark. 277 - Rushing v. State

Rushing v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
October 2005
most recently cited

8 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Connolly v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation · Misskelley v. State · Smith v. State · Mauppin v. State · Oliver 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “age, experience, education, background, and intelligence, and into whether he has the capacity to understand the warnings given him, the nature of his Fifth Amendment rights, and the consequences of waiving those rights. A court must look at the totality of the circumstances to see if the State proved that a defendant had the requisite level of comprehension to waive his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Only if the ‘totality of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation’ reveals both an uncoerced choice and the requisite level of comprehension may a court properly conclude that the Miranda rights have been waived.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.