Gallegos v. State of Colorado’s Empirical Analysis
1962
Citation profile
336 federal appellate · 37 district · 668 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,277 later decisions (49 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2025 · most notably Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera (1966), Gault (1967)
336 federal appellate · 37 district · 668 state decisions — followed in 43 states
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 Culombe v. Connecticut · Bram v. United States · Glidden Company v. Zdanok Et Al. · Spano v. People of the State of New York · Haley v. Ohio
Cited together with Haley v. Ohio · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Gault · Culombe v. Connecticut · Fare v. Michael C.
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 1,277 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“is unlikely to have any conception of what will confront him when he is made accessible only to the police. That is to say, we deal with a person who is not equal to the police in knowledge and understanding of the consequences of the questions and answers being recorded and who is unable to know how to protect his own interests or how to get the benefits of his constitutional rights.”
65 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“be judged by the more exacting standards of maturity.”
19 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Our decisions under [the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment] have made clear that convictions following the admission into evidence of confessions which are involuntary, i. e., the product of coercion, either physical or psychological, cannot stand. This is not so because such confessions are unlikely to be true but because the methods used to extract them offend an underlying principle in the enforcement of our criminal law: that ours is an accusatorial and not an inquisitorial system-a system in which the State must establish guilt by evidence independently and freely secured and may not by coercion prove its charge against an accused out of his own mouth.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.