Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 574 NW2D 261 - State v. Washburne

State v. Washburne’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
3
states following
August 2018
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently August 2018

10 state decisions

60199720002010decided

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 · Carroll v. United States · United States v. Corral · United States v. Rico · United States v. Longmire

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

  1. “the defendant’s age; the level of the defendant’s prior experiences with law enforcement; whether the defendant was intoxicated at the time of the statement; whether the defendant was provided Miranda warnings; the intellectual capacity of the defendant; whether officers acted in a deceptive manner; whether the defendant appeared to understand and respond to questions; the length of time of the detention and interview; the defendant’s physical and emotional reaction to the interrogation; and whether the defendant was subjected to any physical punishment such as the deprivation of food or sleep. The Supreme Court has also considered characteristics such as the defendant’s age; physical fatigue; mental deficiency; [and] level of education....”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “If the evidence given on the trial was sufficient, as we think it was, to sustain the introduction of the liquor as evidence, it is immaterial that there was an inadequacy of evidence when application was made for its return. A conviction on adequate and admissible evidence should not be set aside on such a ground. The whole matter was gone into at the trial, so no right of the defendants was infringed.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “in determining whether the court erred in overruling the motion to suppress we may consider not only the evidence adduced in the motion to suppress but the later trial testimony”
    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.