State v. Tullo’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
1 district · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently January 2025
1 district · 17 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 Schmerber v. State of California · Hoffman v. United States · California v. Byers · School Board of Richmond v. State Board of Education · People v. Lopez
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The purpose of compelling the defendant to identify himself at trial was not to extract an incriminating statement from him, but only to determine the presence or absence of the rightful person standing trial. The defendant was not identifying himself as the person who had committed the offense charged against him.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Richardson““Whether the literal meaning of the words of a statute will control as against a broader or more narrow interpretation of their possible intendment depends upon the policy the Legislature is seeking to implement and the goals it intends to reach through such legislation.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Alley
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.