Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 640 SW2D 374 - Connor v. State

Connor v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
June 1989
most recently cited

2 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Mincey v. Arizona · Rummel v. Estelle · Payne v. Arkansas · Garcia v. State

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

  1. “"The State contends that appellant's admitting, after having been given art. 38.22 warnings, that the car was stolen, operated to excuse what had happened before. We must disagree. Under Payne v. Arkansas, 356 U.S. 560 , 78 S.Ct. 844 , 2 L.Ed.2d 975 (1958), the admission into evidence on an involuntary statement made by the accused requires reversal. Admission of an involuntary statement can never constitute harmless error."”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The trial court thus erred in holding that appellant's statement made in response to Niland's question was voluntarily given, and the evidence was erroneously admitted before the jury.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “appellant's statement [to the intern] was involuntary and thus inadmissible, and the trial court erred in admitting the statement into evidence.”
    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.