Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 38 OHIOST2D 291 - State v. Gallagher

State v. Gallagher’s Empirical Analysis

1974

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
6
states following
June 2005
most recently cited

20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2005 · most notably State v. Roberts (1987), 144 Ohio App. 3d 539 - State v. Evans (2001)

20 state decisions

1301974198019902000decided

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 · Davis v. North Carolina · Davis v. Alaska · State v. Lekas · Smith v. Rhay

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.

  1. “"We have considerable doubt as to the propriety of even calling the parole officer as a witness for such a purpose.[ 3 ] But, pretermitting that, we have no doubt that the testimony was inadmissible unless the officer gave prior Miranda warnings. A parolee is under heavy psychological pressure to answer inquiries made by his parole officer, perhaps even greater than when the interrogation is by an enforcement officer.” United States v. Deaton, 468 F.2d at 544 . Quoted with approval in United States v. Steele, 419 F. Supp. at 1387 ; State v. Gallagher, 313 N.E.2d at 399-400 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The question presented is whether testimony, concerning certain statements made by appellant to his parol officer about his involvement in a crime, was received at trial in violation of appellant's privilege against self-incrimination, as guaranteed by Section 10, Article I of the Ohio Constitution, and the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
    1 later decision 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.