Michigan v. Mosley’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
784 federal appellate · 153 district · 2,881 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 4,542 later decisions (86 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2025 · most notably Edwards v. Arizona (1981), Paul v. Davis (1976)
784 federal appellate · 153 district · 2,881 state decisions — followed in 49 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Boykin v. Alabama · Faretta v. California · Brady v. United States
Cited together with Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Edwards v. Arizona · Rhode Island v. Innis · Johnson v. Zerbst · Brewer v. Williams
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 4,542 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Once warnings have been given, the subsequent procedure is clear. If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease. At this point he has shown that he intends to exercise his Fifth Amendment privilege; any statement taken after the person invokes his privilege cannot be other than the product of compulsion, subtle or otherwise. Without the right to cut off questioning, the setting of in-custody interrogation operates on the individual to overcome free choice in producing a statement after the privilege has been once invoked.”
308 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“`right to cut off questioning' was `scrupulously honored.'”
69 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he reasons to keep the lines of communication between the authorities and the accused open when the accused has chosen to make his own decisions are not present when he indicates instead that he wishes legal advice with respect thereto. The authorities may then communicate with him through an attorney. More to the point, the accused having expressed his own view that he is not competent to deal with the authorities without legal advice, a later decision at the authorities' insistence to make a statement without counsel's presence may properly be viewed with skepticism.”
18 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.