Clark v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 283 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 297 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2018 · most notably 491 So. 2d 1129 - State v. DiGuilio (1986), Wainwright v. Greenfield (1986)
4 federal appellate · 283 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 · Chapman v. State of California · Wainwright v. Sykes · Doyle v. Ohio · United States v. Dinitz
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 297 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A defendant may not make or invite an improper comment and later seek reversal based on that comment.”
18 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Thomas v. State · State v. McNeil“error which goes to the foundation of the case or goes to the merits of the cause of action.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Brown v. State · Peterson v. State“The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides: No person . .. shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; ... The Supreme Court of the United States, in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), construed this right to mean that the prosecution may not use at trial the fact that the defendant claimed his privilege to remain silent in the face of accusation. Indisputably, evidence of post-arrest silence is improper because it violates the defendant’s right against self-incrimination. If properly preserved for appeal through objection, the admission of such testimony constitutes reversible error. Shannon v. State, 335 So.2d 5 (Fla.1976); Bennett v. State, 316 So.2d 41 (Fla.1975).”
2 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.