Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 344 SO2D 731 - Moore v. State

Moore v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1977

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
1
states following
February 2018
most recently cited

23 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently February 2018

23 state decisions

7019771980199020002010decided

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 Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Oregon v. Mathiason · Davis v. Mississippi · 337 So. 2d 1242 - Jackson v. State · Fondren, Alias Taylor 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “... there engaged in the commission of the crime of burglary of the dwelling house then and there occupied by the aforesaid Pearl Lott Triggs.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “He called in a legal capacity, but he represented Scott Hindman, one of the co-defendants in this crime. (Tr. 153) [2] police officers are not required to administer Miranda warnings to everyone whom they question. Nor is the requirement of warnings to be imposed simply because the questioning takes place in the station house, or because the questioned person is one whom the police suspect. Miranda warnings are required only where there has been such a restriction of a person's freedom as to render him”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[T]he prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.”
    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.