State v. Nelson’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
2 district · 58 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently February 2022 · most notably Amfac, Inc. v. Waikiki Beachcomber Investment Co. (1992), State v. Kelekolio (1993)
2 district · 58 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Johnson v. Zerbst · Brown v. Allen · Harris v. New York
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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]hether the defendant invoked his right to counsel and whether he waived the right are primarily questions of fact. Thus, we would not disturb the trial court’s determination of these questions “unless, after a review of the whole record, we are ‘left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’ ””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Villeza · State v. Bukoski“assess credibility of witnesses . . . and to resolve all questions of fact.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Kekona · State v. Safadago“To be sure, we recently said[] “Once Miranda warnings are given, they need not be given again in the same interrogation even if other offenses materialize or become more appropriate.” [Ramones ], [ 69 Haw. at 406 ], 744 P.2d [at] 518 ... (citation omitted). But we were speaking of a situation totally unlike the one at bar.... Unlike Radford John Ramones, Kurt Lance Nelson was subjected to questioning more than once. He was initially questioned by Officer Mariboho on Christmas Day about harassing calls received by two ministers. Armed with information about threatening calls received by other persons uncovered by the telephone company in the interim, Mariboho retened two days later with another officer, and they subjected the defendant to further interrogation. This was hardly “the same interrogation” conducted on Christmas Day. The officers had new information regarding different offenses, and it was incumbent upon them to “Mirandize” the defendant again.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Poaipuni
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.