Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 610 SW2D 946 - State v. Royal

State v. Royal’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

103
cited by 103 later decisions
1
states following
April 2019
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 98 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 103 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably State v. Newlon (1982), State v. Mease (1992)

3 federal appellate · 98 state decisions

7301981199020002010decided

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 · Gregg v. Georgia · Witherspoon v. Illinois · Furman v. Georgia · Michigan v. Mosley

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

  1. “[i]f the evidence was not of such a character as to raise a reasonable likelihood that its prior discovery would have affected the result of the trial, there is no error for failing to impose sanctions for its nondisclosure.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Any written or recorded, statements and the substance of any oral statements made by the defendant.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““Where there is conflicting evidence on the voluntariness of a statement, as there is here, the admissibility of a confession by a trial court is a matter of discretion which is not lightly disturbed. State v. Flowers, 592 S.W.2d 167, 170 (Mo. banc 1979); State v. Hopkirk, 84 Mo. 278 (1884). Inasmuch as the trial court implicitly found these statements voluntary, and such finding being substantially supported by the record, appellant’s first contention is rejected.””
    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.