Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 69 Haw. 398 - State v. Ramones

State v. Ramones’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
November 2015
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently November 2015

10 state decisions

401987199020002010decided

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 · Colorado v. Connelly · Moran v. Burbine · Oregon v. Elstad · Michigan v. Mosley

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

  1. “This is not a true staleness issue. The issue of rewarning is merely the flip side of the first issue: must arrestees be “Miran-dized” for every single statutory offense possible? Once Miranda warnings are given, they need not be given again in the same interrogation even if other offenses materialize or become more appropriate. Colorado, 479 U.S. at 575 , 107 S.Ct. at 858 , 93 L.Ed.2d at 967 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “1. Whether the trial court erred by suppressing Ramones’s statement based on the conclusion that the effectiveness of his Miranda rights waiver depended on the nature of the charges against him at the time of interrogation? YES. 2. Whether it was unnecessary to rewarn Ramones where the interrogating police officer had already obtained a valid waiver of Miranda rights? YES.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Ramones was arrested for auto theft but eventually charged with [UCPV]. The two offenses carry the same penalty and are closely related. Miranda warnings as to one offense provided sufficient notice as to potential criminal liability for the other offense.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.