Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 425 PA 175 - Commonwealth v. Bishop

Commonwealth v. Bishop’s Empirical Analysis

1967

Citation profile

129
cited by 129 later decisions
5
states following
May 2010
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 122 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 129 later decisions — most recently May 2010 · most notably 70 Cal. 2d 541 - People v. Johnson (1969), Commonwealth v. Garvin (1972)

3 federal appellate · 122 state decisions

940196719701980199020002010decided

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 · Wong Sun v. United States · Carroll v. United States · Mapp v. Ohio · Brinegar v. United States

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

  1. “(1) whether Miranda warnings were given; (2) the "temporal proximity of the arrest and the confession"; (3) "the presence of intervening circumstances"; and, (4) "the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct". The voluntariness of the statement is, of course, a threshold requirement, and the confession must also be "free of any element of coerciveness due to the unlawful arrest."”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(a) the proximity of an initial illegal custodial act to the procurement of the confession; and”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “We need not hold that all evidence is `fruit of the poisonous tree' simply because it would not have come to light but for the illegal actions of the police. Rather, the more apt question in such a case is `whether, granting establishment of the primary illegality, the evidence to which instant objection is made has been come at by the exploitation of that illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint.'”
    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.