Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 454 NE2D 845 - Dillon v. State

Dillon v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
October 1997
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 17 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on United States v. Mendenhall · Gregg v. Georgia · Brown v. Illinois · Dunaway v. New York · Jurek v. Texas

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

  1. “It is clear that if a confession is the product of an unlawful detention or an illegal arrest it is inadmissible, [citations omitted] However, it is also clear that not every police-citizen encounter amounts to a “seizure” of the person so that an arrest or unlawful detention has occurred. The test for determining whether a person has been “seized” for Fourth Amendment purposes is whether, considering all the circumstances surrounding the police-citizen encounter, the defendant entertained a reasonable belief that he was not free to leave, [citations omitted]”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"[Article 1, Section 18 of the Indiana Constitution is an admonition to the legislative branch of the state government and is addressed to the public policy which the legislature must follow in formulating the penal code. It applies to the penal laws as a system to insure that these laws are framed upon the theory of reformation as well as the protection of society. Schiro v. State, (1983) Ind., 451 N.E.2d 1047 ; Williams v. State, (1982) Ind., 480 N.E.2d 759 , appeal dismissed, (1982) 459 U.S. 808 , 108 S.Ct. 33 , 74 L.Ed.2d 47 ; Brewer v. State, (1981) [275] Ind. [888], 417 N.E.2d 889 , cert. denied, (1982) 458 U.S. 1122 , 102 S.Ct. 3510 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1884 ; Judy v. State, (1981) [275] Ind. [145], 416 N.E.2d 95 ; French v. State, (1977) 266 Ind. 276 , 362 N.E.2d 884 ,"”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “stand firm and require a clear demonstration that the essential operations of the death sentencing process have taken place.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.