Hunter v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
1 district · 81 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 83 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2012 · most notably Thompson v. Keohane (1995), Frink v. State (1979)
1 district · 81 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Blockburger v. United States · Escobedo v. Illinois · Oregon v. Mathiason
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 83 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“At least three groups of facts would be relevant to this determination. The first are those facts intrinsic to the interrogation: when and where it occurred, how long it lasted, how many police were present, what the officers and the defendant said and did, the presence of actual physical restraint on the defendant or things equivalent to actual restraint such as drawn weapons or a guard stationed at the door, and whether the defendant was being questioned as a suspect or as a witness. Facts pertaining to events before the interrogation are also relevant, especially how the defendant got to the place of questioning — whether he came completely on his own, in response to a police request, or escorted by police officers. Finally, what happened after the interrogation — whether the defendant left freely, was detained or arrested — may assist the court in determining whether the defendant, as a reasonable person, would have felt free to break off the questioning.”
29 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Sampson · Moss v. State“Here, the acts did involve the intent to steal from separate owners and the conduct of stealing separate items from each of the owners. There is a sufficient difference in intent and conduct so that separate punishment would not impose double jeopardy. 7”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Moss v. State · Haas 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.