Roesel v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1898
Citation profile
1 district · 44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently October 2001 · most notably State v. Smith (1960), People v. Nagle (1944)
1 district · 44 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 Bram v. United States · Wilson v. United States · Sparf v. United States · Commonwealth v. Piper · Commonwealth v. Culver
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The ground on which confessions made by a party accused under promises of favor or threats of injury are excluded as incompetent, is not because any wrong is done to the accused in using them, but because he may be induced by the pressure of hope or fear to admit facts unfavorable to him without regard to their truth, in order to obtain the promised relief or avoid the threatened danger, and therefore admissions so obtained have no just and legitimate tendency to prove the facts admitted. [at 226-227]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“whether made upon an official examination or in discourse with private persons,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Kelly
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.