Hughes v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably 116 Md. App. 580 - In Re Joshua David C. (1997), 158 Md. App. 194 - Allen v. State (2004)
42 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 21 U.S.C. § 955A
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Rhode Island v. Innis · New York v. Quarles · Stafford v. Oklahoma · Pennsylvania v. Muniz
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"[Q]uestions that are `designed to elicit incriminatory admissions' do not fall within the narrow routine booking question exception. In some instances, it is plain from the nature of the question whether it is aimed at merely gathering pedigree information for record-keeping purposes, or whether it is directed at procuring statements by the suspect that, either in isolation or in connection with other known facts, will tend to prove the suspect's guilt. * * *”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“As amicus United States explains, “[rjecognizing a ‘booking exception’ to Miranda does not mean, of course, that any question asked during the booking process falls within that exception. Without obtaining a waiver of the suspect’s Miranda rights, the police may not ask questions, even during booking, that are designed to elicit incriminatory admissions.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“`the critical inquiry is whether the police officer, based on the totality of the circumstances, knew or should have known that the question was reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.