Autry v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
57 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2016 · most notably Wicker v. State (1984), State v. Bey (1988)
57 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 · Wong Sun v. United States · Katz v. United States · Townsend v. Sain · Jackson v. Denno
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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““conduct occurring in an attempt to commit, during the commission, or in immediate flight after the attempt or commission of the offense, i.e., in this case, of robbery.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Bower v. State · Fierro v. State“"The standard for determining whether the source of evidence is sufficiently independent of the illegality so as to avoid its taint was set forth in Wong Sun v. United States, [ 371 U.S. 471, 487-88 , 83 S.Ct. 407, 417 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963)]: We need not hold that all evidence is ‘fruit of the poisonous tree' simply because it would not have come to light but for the illegal action of the police. Rather, the more apt question in such a case is ‘whether, granting the establishment of the illegality, the evidence to which instant objection is made has been come at by exploitation of that illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint.’” Wicker, supra, at 141 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Garza v. State“"In the instant cause, appellant’s telephone call to his mother was shown to be an act of free will. The call was placed after appellant had been allowed to sleep and had not been interrogated for six and one-half hours. The admissions which were made were not the result of interrogation. There was no exploitation of the excluded statement by officers connecting the signing of the statement and the placing of the telephone call. We find no causal relationship between the admission and the written statement excluded by the court. Those admissions were in no way induced or tainted by the written statement which the court found to have been obtained in violation of appellant’s right to remain silent.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Garza 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.