Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 442 So. 2d 944 - State v. Burwick

442 So. 2d 944 - State v. Burwick’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

31
cited by 31 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
6
states following
October 2008
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 27 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2008 · most notably Wainwright v. Greenfield (1986), 528 So. 2d 353 - Garron v. State (1988)

2 federal appellate · 27 state decisions

210198319902000decided

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 · Doyle v. Ohio · United States v. Hale · Fletcher v. Weir · Williams 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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[p]ost-arrest, post- Miranda silence is deemed to have dubious probative value by reason of the many and ambiguous explanations for such silence.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “. . .The reason for the rule holding inadmissible at trial evidence of the post-arrest silence and request for counsel of a defendant who has been advised of his Miranda rights is that the evidence creates an inference that the defendant is guilty of committing the criminal act. 442 So.2d at 947.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “To permit the state to benefit from the fruits of its own deceptions violates the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment and article I, section 9, of the Florida Constitution. See Doyle v. Ohio, [ 426 U.S. 610 , 96 S.Ct. 2240 , 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976)]; see also United States v. Hale, 422 U.S. 171, 182 , 95 S.Ct. 2133, 2139 , 45 L.Ed.2d 99 , [108] (White, J., Concurring).”
    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.