Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 561 F.2d 1129 - Chaney v. Wainwright

Chaney v. Wainwright’s Empirical Analysis

561 F.2d 1129 · 1977

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
5
states following
March 2003
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2003

4 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

1101977198019902000decided

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 · Hoffa v. United States · Haynes v. Washington · Michigan v. Tucker · Blackburn v. Alabama

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

  1. “[T]he state readily concedes that the police would have been required to accede to a request for an attorney. The accused who requests his mother rather than his ever-available attorney is the less knowledgeable, more easily coerced person most in need of protection from police overreaching. It makes no sense to protect the knowledgeable accused from stationhouse coercion while abandoning the young person who knows no more than to ask for the one person he trusts, his mother.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. ““If an intentional and truthful statement must be deemed to be involuntary, merely by reason of imaginary dangers conjured up by an apprehensive suspect, a greater burden would be placed on law enforcement than any which judicial solicitude for persons charged with crime has hitherto created. There would be no objective standards for determining voluntariness, and no limit but the ingenuity of the defendant to the grounds for invalidity of confessions.””
    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.