Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 686 SO2D 528 - State v. Jude

State v. Jude’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
1
states following
September 2016
most recently cited

23 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently September 2016

23 state decisions

140199620002010decided

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 · Berkemer v. McCarty · Oregon v. Mathiason · California v. Beheler · Premium Service Corporation v. The Sperry & Hutchinson Company, George A. Scott

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

  1. “' "whether the suspect was questioned in familiar or neutral surroundings, the number of law enforcement officers present at the scene, the degree of physical restraint of the suspect, the duration and character of the questioning, how the suspect got to the place of questioning, the language used to summon the suspect, the extent to which the suspect is confronted with evidence of guilt, and the degree of pressure applied to detain the suspect.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “'A judge abuses his discretion only when his decision is based on an erroneous conclusion of law or where the record contains no evidence on which he rationally could have based his decision.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “"Although we could remand the case for findings of fact so that we would know the basis of the trial court's ruling, as we did in the similar case of State v. Gaston, 512 So.2d 799 (Ala.Cr.App.1987), we deem that to be unnecessary in this case because all of the material facts are before us and uncontested.””
    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.