Bivins v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 117 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 134 later decisions — most recently August 2019 · most notably Richardson v. State (1999), State v. Allen (1999)
9 federal appellate · 117 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 Chapman v. State of California · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Gregg v. Georgia · Lockett v. Ohio · Eddings v. Oklahoma
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 134 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“relevan[t] to the death penalty statute's aggravating and mitigating circumstances.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Statements made to police or to their agents by those in police custody in response to police interrogation are inadmissible at trial, unless the State sustains its burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that they were preceded by a knowing and voluntary waiver of the privilege against self-incrimination and the right to counsel and were themselves voluntarily given. In determining whether a statement or waiver was voluntarily given, we look to all the circumstances surrounding its giving to determine whether it was the product of any violence, threats, promises or other improper influence. The appropriate standard for evaluating the voluntariness of a waiver of rights is the totality of the circumstances test.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. S.A. v. State · SA v. State“[It is improper for a court to instruct a jury that they have a right to disregard the law. Notwithstanding Article 1, Section 19 of the Indiana Constitution, a jury has no more right to ignore the law than it has to ignore the facts in a case.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Holden v. State · Bunting 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.