State v. King’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
2 district · 101 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 103 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably State v. Johnson (1975), State v. Koedatich (1988)
2 district · 101 state decisions — followed in 13 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 Malloy v. Hogan · State v. Johnson · United States v. Mitchell · Page v. Work · Tilton v. Missouri Pacific Railroad
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 103 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) that consent was given where the accused had reason to believe that the police would find no contraband; (2) that the defendant admitted his guilt before consent; [and] (3) that the defendant affirmatively assisted the police officers. * [ Id. at 353 (citations omitted).]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) no person has the privilege to refuse to submit to examination for the purpose of discovering or recording his corporal features and other identifying characteristics or his physical or mental condition.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““* * * Historically, the privilege against self-incrimination originated as a reaction to the practice in the early English courts of compelling a witness to be sworn and give testimony concerning his guilt or innocence. See 8 Wigmore, Evidence § 2250 (McNaughton rev. 1961) and Weintraub, Voice Identification, Writing Exemplars and the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination,’ 10 Vand. L. Rev. 485 , 486-490 (1957). In the light of this history the text writers and the overwhelming majority of the courts have limited the scope of the privilege to what Wigmore characterizes as ‘testimonial compulsion,’ i. e., ‘compulsion to do those things which a witness would by traditional judicial processes be required to do.’ McCormick, Evidence § 126 and cases cited therein (1954). 8 Wigmore, op. cit. supra § 2263; Maguire, Evidence of Guilt § 2.04 (1959); and Weintraub, supra.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Blair
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.