Oregon v. Mathiason’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
780 federal appellate · 232 district · 2,884 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 4,700 later decisions (56 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2025 · most notably Manson v. Brathwaite (1977), Berkemer v. McCarty (1984)
780 federal appellate · 232 district · 2,884 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 · South Dakota v. Opperman · Michigan v. Mosley · Lego v. Twomey
Cited together with Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · California v. Beheler · Berkemer v. McCarty · Beckwith v. United States · Stansbury v. California
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 4,700 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“simply because the questioning takes place in the station house, or because the questioned person is one whom the police suspect.”
308 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.”
81 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'The officer met defendant in the hallway, shook hands and took him into an office. The defendant was told he was not under arrest. The door was closed. The two sat across a desk. The police radio in another room could be heard. The officer told defendant he wanted to talk to him about a burglary and that his truthfulness would possibly be considered by the district attorney or judge. The officer further advised that the police believed defendant was involved in the burglary and [falsely stated that] defendant's fingerprints were found at the scene. The defendant sat for a few minutes and then said he had taken the property. This occurred within five minutes after defendant had come to the office. The officer then advised defendant of his Miranda rights and took a taped confession. 'At the end of the taped conversation the officer told defendant he was not arresting him at this time; he was released to go about his job and return to his family. The officer said he was referring the case to the district attorney for him to determine whether criminal charges would be brought. It was 5:30 p. m. when the defendant left the office.'" 429 U.S. at 493-94 , 97 S.Ct. at 713 .”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Menne · State v. Smith
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.