Marine v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently March 2010
19 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 · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Jackson v. Denno · Gault · Rhode Island v. Innis
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“First, the relinquishment of the right must have been voluntary in the sense that it was the product of a free and deliberate choice rather than intimidation, coercion, or deception. Second, the waiver must have been made with a full awareness of both the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to.abandon it. Only if the “totality of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation” reveal [sic] both an uncoereed choice and the requisite level of comprehension may a court properly conclude that the Miranda warnings have been waived.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. DeJesus v. State · Bennett v. State“After a careful review of the evidence and all of the circumstances surrounding the acts charged, the Court concludes that the State did not have a fair likelihood of convicting Marine of Murder in the First Degree. Because a prima fa-cie ease on that charge has not been established, the Court determines and reports to the Supreme Court that Marine’s application for transfer of this case to the Family Court should have been granted.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Marine v. State“The discretion of the General Assembly in setting policy under its police power is, however, not absolute. It may not be arbitrary or capricious: it must be reasonable. When the power is exercised to classify for purpose of trial for crimes, as this is, then the classification must be founded on differences reasonably related to the purposes of the statute in which the classification is made.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Hughes 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.