Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 4 N.J. 461 - State v. Bunk

State v. Bunk’s Empirical Analysis

1950

Citation profile

67
cited by 67 later decisions
12
states following
August 1997
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 2 district · 57 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently August 1997 · most notably State v. Ramseur (1987), State v. Butler (1958)

5 federal appellate · 2 district · 57 state decisions — followed in 12 states

40019501960197019801990decided

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 McNabb v. United States · Lisenba v. People of State of California · Watts v. Indiana · Upshaw v. United States · Lyons v. State of Oklahoma

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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"The arrests and arraignments of these defendants occurred before the effective date of our new rules, but giving full force to Rule 2:3-3, which provides that an accused be arraigned before the nearest magistrate without unnecessary delay, a statement or confession made by the accused is not ipso facto inadmissible solely by reason of the violation of that procedural rule. The test still remains, was the statement or confession voluntarily made?””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““ ‘It cannot be doubted that a confession induced by physical or moral compulsion, whatever its nature, has no evidential efficacy’ and we reaffirm that principle, but we also reaffirm the principle that a confession freely and voluntarily given and not induced by hope or fear or other consideration leading to the substitution of something else than the truth is admissible in evidence.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““[T]he purpose of the jury is to determine guilt, the punishment being fixed by legislative enactment [27. J. 8. A. 2A:113-4], and that punishment [death] must be imposed unless the jury by their verdict make a contrary disposition. Before that contrary disposition can be made it must be agreed upon by the jury unanimously or else the death penalty attaches.” (4 27. J., at p. 476)”
    1 later decision 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.