Harrison v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently August 2002
10 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 · Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. United States · United States v. Montos · 52 Ala. App. 260 - Barnett v. State · Brown v. Beto
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“" Miranda , supra, does not prevent traditional investigatory functions such as general on-the-scene questioning, but it does become operative where restraint of an individual by law enforcement personnel is 'significant.' United States v. Montos , 421 F.2d 215 (5th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1022 [ 90 S.Ct. 1262 , 25 L.Ed.2d 532 ]. . . . The dividing line between general investigation and custodial interrogation is not drawn with precise demarcation, but is determined on a case-by-case factual analysis. Brown v. Beto , 468 F.2d 1284 (5th Cir. 1972). Criteria used to determine the necessity of Miranda safeguards include: probable cause to arrest, subjective intent of the police, subjective belief of the defendant, and focus of the investigation. Montos , supra. Especially important is whether the focus of the investigation had finally been centered on the accused. Brown , supra; DeGruy v. State , 56 Ala. App. 521 , 323 So.2d 406 (1975), cert. denied, 295 Ala. 399 , 323 So.2d 411 ."”
4 later decisions 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.