Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 691 A.2d 564 - State v. Campbell

State v. Campbell’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

45
cited by 45 later decisions
4
states following
November 2013
most recently cited

44 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently November 2013 · most notably 803 So. 2d 598 - Connor v. State (2001), State v. Lead Industries, Ass'n, Inc. (2008)

44 state decisions

240199720002010decided

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 · Ornelas v. United States · Colorado v. Connelly · Moran v. Burbine · California v. Trombetta

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

  1. ““[T]he totality-of-the-circumstances test requires consideration of all of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation of a juvenile suspect, including the juvenile’s age, experience, education, and intelligence, his or her capacity to understand the Miranda warnings and the consequences of waiver, and the presence of a parent, a guardian, or an interested adult.” Campbell, 691 A.2d at 567 (citing In re Kean, 520 A.2d at 1274-75 ).”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““ ‘[a] policy of sweeping deference’ [to the trial justice] could allow constitutional issues to be decided ‘[i]n the absence of any significant difference in the facts,’ * * * [depending] ‘on whether different trial judges draw general conclusions that the facts are sufficient or insufficient’ to decide a constitutional issue. [Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. -, -, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 1662 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911, 919 (1996) ]. The Supreme Court concluded that ‘[independent review is therefore necessary if appellate courts are to maintain control of, and to clarify the legal principles.’ Id.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[t]his Court will review de novo legal questions and mixed questions of law and fact insofar as those issues impact on constitutional matters, pursuant to Ornelas .”
    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.