370 So. 2d 533 - State v. Collins’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently January 2013 · most notably 775 So. 2d 1022 - State v. Casey (2000), 440 So. 2d 129 - State v. Benoit (1983)
24 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 · Dobbert v. Florida · Roberts v. Louisiana · Bradley v. United States · 23 Cal. 3d 103 - People v. Teron
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The defendant was standing outside his friend's house ... He was not threatened with any physical restraint. The officers' preliminary questions as to his previous whereabouts and apparel did not necessarily indicate that defendant was under suspicion or that he would be prevented from leaving ... Under the circumstances, the officers were entitled to learn if in fact the defendant was the person in pink flowered apparel who was at the store at the time in question ... When the defendant confirmed that he was present during the time ... but gave information controverting that of other witnesses as to the description of his clothing, the officers immediately advised him of his constitutional rights ... Accordingly, defendant was not subjected to custodial interrogation without being informed of his constitutional rights." 370 So.2d at p. 538 . See also annotation, "Custodial Interrogation Miranda Rule, 31 A.L.R.3d 565 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Nowhere in the 1976 capital punishment legislation itself is there any provision which purports to apply the new laws retroactively to crimes which were committed before the legislation’s effective date. Therefore, these acts are governed by the original legislative intention that criminal code provisions shall not apply to a crime committed before their effective date, La.R.S. 14-142,[ 3 ] and the legislature’s express stipulation that no section of the Revised Statutes is retroactive unless expressly so stated. La.R.S. 1:2.”[ 4 ]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“redefining the crime of first degree murder and enacting a permissive, and presumably constitutional, death penalty ...”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Coleman
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.