Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 569 SW2D 745 - State v. Olds

State v. Olds’s Empirical Analysis

1978

Citation profile

66
cited by 66 later decisions
2
states following
October 2014
most recently cited

66 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently October 2014 · most notably State v. Wood (1980), State v. Higgins (1979)

66 state decisions

46019781980199020002010decided

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 · Wong Sun v. United States · Jackson v. Denno · Brown v. Illinois · 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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “While the burden of proceeding is on defendant, once he has made his allegations regarding the inadmissibility of the statements, the burden of proof is on the State to show compliance with the guidelines set forth in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and the voluntariness of the statement. In Lego v. Twomey, 404 U.S. 477 , 92 S.Ct. 619 , 30 L.Ed.2d 618 (1972), the Supreme Court held that voluntariness of such confession need be proved by a preponderance of the evidence, which is the standard we adopt for such cases.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “We need not hold that all evidence is “fruit of the poisonous tree” simply because it would not have come to light but for the illegal actions of the police. Rather, the more apt question in such a case is “whether, granting establishment of the primary illegality, the evidence to which instant objection is made has been come at by exploitation of that illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““The statement appears to have been made quite voluntarily after defendant had been warned of his right to remain silent and was not in response to any interrogation. By volunteering, defendant waived his right (as to this statement) to remain silent under the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution and art. I, § 19 of the Missouri Constitution, and no violation of Miranda occurred....””
    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.