562 So. 2d 1238 - Saucier v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently May 2018 · most notably 592 So. 2d 114 - Hansen v. State (1991), 585 So. 2d 660 - Willie v. State (1991)
38 state decisions
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 · Neil v. Biggers · Edwards v. Arizona · Manson v. Brathwaite · Brewer v. Williams
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“substantial and detailed evidence of the testimony he would have given.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“On appeal, this Court’s scope of review of findings of fact is limited by the familiar substantial evidence rule. Davis v. State, 551 So.2d 165, 169 (Miss.1989). In this case the Circuit Court made no specific findings with respect to each of the three inculpatory statements, instead making a general finding of voluntariness and, hence, admissibility. Where this is so, we may nevertheless, rely upon findings which are fairly implied in the ruling made by the court. After a full evidentiary hearing, the trial court found Saucier’s waiver to be knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently given. On that basis, the trial court found his confession to be admissible. Based on the foregoing, and finding no error in the ruling below regarding this first assignment of error, we affirm thereasto.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Martin v. State“(a) General Rule. For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence that he has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted if elicited from him or established by public record during cross-examination but only if the crime (1) was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year under the law under which he was convicted, and the court determines that the probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect on a party or (2) involved dishonesty or false statement, regardless of the punishment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.