Jahnke v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
58 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2025 · most notably Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez (2007), State v. Angel C. (1998)
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 · Gault · Starnes v. Penrod Drilling Co. · North Carolina v. Butler · Nye & Nissen v. United States
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"* * * Our rule is that in the absence of fundamental error affecting a substantial right of the appellant or involving the jurisdiction of the court, we do not consider questions sought to be raised for the first time on appeal. Hopkinson v. State, Wyo., 664 P.2d 43 (1983), cert. denied 464 U.S. 908 , 104 S.Ct. 262 , 78 L.Ed.2d 246 (1983); Nickelson v. People, Wyo., 607 P.2d 904 (1980); and Nisonger v. State, Wyo., 581 P.2d 1094 (1978). Furthermore, unless plain error is present, questions concerning the constitutionality of a statute are not considered on appeal if the party presenting them failed to present or argue the contentions in the trial court. * * *"”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“In these cases we have held that the fact that the individual being questioned is a juvenile is simply a factor to be considered in the totality of the cireumstances in order to determine whether the waiver was efficacious. This view is consistent with that espoused in Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707, 725 , 99 S.Ct. 2560 , 61 L.Ed.2d 197 , reh. denied 444 U.S. 887 , 100 S.Ct. 186 , 62 L.Ed.2d 121 (1979), in which the Supreme Court of the United States said: This totality-ofthe circumstances approach is adequate to determine whether there has been a waiver even where interrogation of juveniles is involved. We discern no persuasive reasons why any other approach is required where the question is whether a juvenile has waived his rights, as opposed to whether an adult has done so. The totality approach permits-indeed, it mandates-inquiry into all the cireumstances surrounding the interrogation. This includes evaluation of the juvenile's age, experience, education, background, and intelligence, and into whether he has the capacity to understand the warnings given him, the nature of his Fifth Amend ment rights, and the consequences of waiving those rights.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““[T]he descriptive phrase in the statute is simply a way of saying that the element of malice required for murder in the second degree and also murder in the first degree is not required. Consequently, it is not a true element of the defense of voluntary manslaughter. * * * ” Jahnke v. State, Wyo., 692 P.2d 911, 919 (1984).”
3 later decisions 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.