Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 501 P.2d 1026 - Davis v. State

Davis v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1972

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
4
states following
January 2015
most recently cited

15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently January 2015

15 state decisions

7019721980199020002010decided

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 · Harris v. New York · Dennis v. United States · McGautha v. California · United States v. Knox

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

  1. “[W]e do consider this an appropriate occasion to voice our disapproval of any comment absent waiver by the prosecution of an accused’s silence resulting from the exercise of his constitutional rights. Article I, section 9 of Alaska’s constitution provides in part that “No person shall be compelled in any criminal proceeding to be a witness against himself.” In another context in Bargas v. State, 489 P.2d 130, 133 (Alaska 1971), we commented that: One’s assertion of his constitutional right not to submit to a search of his person cannot be used as evidence of guilt if this constitutional right is to have any meaning. ... It was error to allow Herl to testify as to appellant’s refusal to submit to a search. There is considerable federal precedent to the effect that an inference of guilt may not be drawn from a failure to speak or to explain when a person has been arrested. [Footnote omitted.]”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““It is unlawful for any person to manufacture, possess, have under his control, sell, prescribe, administer, dispense, give, barter, supply or distribute in any manner, or compound any narcotic drug except as authorized in this chapter.””
    2 later decisions 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.