574 So. 2d 66 - Henry v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1991

Citation profile

cited by 27 later decisions

states following

June 2015

most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently June 2015 · most notably 967 So. 2d 155 - Cuervo v. State (2007), 111 So. 3d 810 - Braddy v. State (2012)

2 federal appellate · 24 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 · Michigan v. Mosley · Gregory Lumber Co. v. United States · Morrison v. Olson · Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. Martin Exploration Management Co.

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

“a defendant seeks to pursue an insanity defense, the state should have an equal opportunity to obtain evidence relevant to that issue.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Hickson v. State · State v. Hickson
“First, Mosley was informed of his fights both times before questioning began. Second, the officer immediately ceased questioning when Mosley unequivocally said he did not want to talk about the burglaries. Third, there was a significant lapse of time between the questioning on the burglary and the questioning on the homicide. Fourth, the second episode of questioning took place in a different location. Fifth, the second episode involved a different crime.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Pierre v. State · 877 So. 2d 663 - Globe v. State
“[T]he [United States] Supreme Court neither set out `precise guidelines' for what constitutes scrupulous adherence to Miranda nor stated that `any factor standing by itself would be dispositive of the issue.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. 967 So. 2d 155 - Cuervo v. State · 877 So. 2d 663 - Globe v. State

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.