Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 518 NW2D 587 - State v. Scales

State v. Scales’s Empirical Analysis

1994

Citation profile

115
cited by 115 later decisions
22
states following
May 2024
most recently cited

12 federal appellate · 1 district · 92 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 115 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably Commonwealth v. DiGiambattista (2004), United States v. Tykarsky (2006)

12 federal appellate · 1 district · 92 state decisions — followed in 22 states

5201994200020102020decided

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 Stephan v. State · Williams v. State · Commonwealth v. Fryar · Mallott v. State · State v. Borst

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

  1. “all custodial interrogation including any information about rights, any waiver of those rights, and all questioning shall be electronically recorded where feasible and must be recorded when questioning occurs at a place of detention.”
    16 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “urge[d] ... law enforcement professionals [to] use those technological means at their disposal to fully preserve those conversations and events preceding the actual interrogation.” State v. Pilcher, 472 N.W.2d 327, 333 (Minn.1991). We warned law enforcement personnel and prosecutors that we would”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “the recording of custodial interrogations “is now a reasonable and necessary safeguard, essential to the adequate protection of the accused’s right to counsel, his right against self incrimination and, ultimately, his right to a fair trial.””
    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.