Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 407 F.2d 39 - Camacho v. United States

Camacho v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

407 F.2d 39 · 1969

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
5
states following
May 1996
most recently cited

16 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently May 1996

16 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

1601969197019801990decided

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

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2113 · 18 U.S.C. § 3231 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291

Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Chapman v. State of California · Wong Sun v. United States · Griffin v. California · Johnson v. State of New Jersey

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

  1. “. . the words of Miranda do not constitute a ritualistic formula which must be repeated without variation in order to be effective. Words which convey the substance of the warning along with the required information are sufficient.”
    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.