Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 690 So. 2d 581 - Sapp v. State

690 So. 2d 581 - Sapp v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

43
cited by 43 later decisions
7
states following
June 2021
most recently cited

43 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently June 2021 · most notably State v. Mata (2003), 748 So. 2d 970 - Thomas v. State (1999)

43 state decisions

1901997200020102020decided

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 · Gideon v. Wainwright · Edwards v. Arizona · Rhode Island v. Innis · Douglas v. People of State of California

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

  1. “requiring the invocation [of the right to counsel] to occur either during custodial interrogation or when it is imminent strikes a healthier balance between the protection of the individual from police coercion on the one hand and the State's need to conduct criminal investigations on the other.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The antipathy expressed in McNeil towards the anticipatory invocation of the Miranda rights is consistent with Miranda ’s underlying principles. The Miranda right to counsel is a prophylactic rule that does not operate independent from the danger it seeks to protect against — “the compelling atmosphere inherent in the process of in-custody interrogation” — and the effect that danger can have on a suspect’s privilege to avoid compelled self-incrimination.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[i]n Miranda , the United States Supreme Court ruled that statements made by an individual while under custodial interrogation may not be introduced as evidence against the individual unless he or she first has been informed of certain rights, including the right to have counsel present during custodial interrogation.”
    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.