Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 68 F.3d 710 - Flamer v. State of DE

Flamer v. State of DE’s Empirical Analysis

1995

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
5
states following
July 2014
most recently cited

9 district · 11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently July 2014 · most notably State v. Van Cleave (1996), State v. Josephs (2002)

9 district · 11 state decisions

170199520002010decided

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 Strickland v. Washington · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Johnson v. Zerbst · Edwards v. Arizona · Teague v. Lane

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

  1. “[T]he [ Davis ] Court held that Edwards applies only if a defendant `unambiguously' requests counsel. `If a suspect makes a reference to an attorney that is ambiguous or equivocal in that a reasonable officer in light of the circumstances would have understood only that the suspect might be invoking the right to counsel,' Edwards does not come into play. Here, Flamer's request to telephone about possible representation `failed to meet the requisite level of clarity' that Davis demands.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “request to call his mother `to inquire about . . . possible representation' . . . was insufficient to trigger Edwards under the Supreme Court's decision in Davis .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
    e.g. In Re HV
  3. “a request for an attorney at arraignment is, in itself, insufficient to invoke the Fifth Amendment right to counsel at subsequent custodial interrogation.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
    e.g. In Re HV

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.