398 So. 2d 421 - Nelson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
8
cited by 8 later decisions
2
states following
April 1998
most recently cited
8 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Brewer v. Williams · 387 So. 2d 855 - Eakes v. State · 347 So. 2d 1377 - Ex Parte Thompson · 382 So. 2d 1162 - Bufford v. State
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The general rule is that a confession is not to be automatically excluded simply because the accused was under the influence of drugs at the time he made it. Unless the facts show an inability to know and remember those matters related in the *Page 291 confession, an addiction to drugs does not render the accused's confession inadmissible. The fact that the accused was under the influence of drugs, however, is to be considered, along with other factors, in determining whether his confession was voluntary."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ponder v. State“The fact that a defendant has an attorney does not mean, as a per se rule, that law enforcement officials cannot procure a statement of any kind from the defendant without prior notice to, and the consent of, his attorneys.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“so far dethroned that he was unable to understand the effect of what he was saying or to give a true account of his actions with respect to the alleged crimes.”
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.