Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 66 Cal. 2d 808 - People v. Varnum

66 Cal. 2d 808 - People v. Varnum’s Empirical Analysis

1967

Citation profile

233
cited by 233 later decisions
3
cited 3 times by the Supreme Court
9
states following
January 2016
most recently cited

19 federal appellate · 3 district · 205 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 233 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2016 · most notably Alderman v. United States (1969), 8 Cal. 3d 77 - Theodor v. Superior Court (1972)

19 federal appellate · 3 district · 205 state decisions

1000196719701980199020002010decided

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 · Escobedo v. Illinois · Massiah v. United States · 46 Cal. 2d 818 - People v. Watson · Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor

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

  1. “Unlike unreasonable searches and seizures, which always violate the Constitution, there is nothing unlawful in questioning an unwarned suspect so long as the police refrain from physically and psychologically coercive tactics condemned by due process and do not use against the suspect any evidence obtained. Accordingly, in the absence of such coercive tactics, there is no basis for excluding physical or other nonhearsay evidence acquired as a result of questioning a suspect in disregard of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights when such evidence is offered at the trial of another person.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “the deterrent effect of the exclusionary rule would be seriously weakened”
    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.