Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 7 SO3D 277 - Pannell v. State

Pannell v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2008

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
March 2013
most recently cited

4 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Chapman v. State of California · Edwards v. Arizona · Rhode Island v. Innis · Fare v. Michael C.

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

  1. “In reviewing a trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress a confession, “we apply the familiar general rule that since the trial court sits as the fact-finder when determining the issue of whether an accused’s confession has been intelligently, knowingly and voluntarily given, we will only reverse the trial court’s determination of this issue when such determination is manifestly wrong.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “category, the Supreme Court stopped short of creating an exhaustive list of police techniques that are held to be interrogation practices. Likewise, the law in this state provides little guidance as to what procedures should be considered interrogation. Pannell v. State, 7 So.3d 277, 283 (¶ 13) (Miss.Ct.App.2008). This Court has stated that interrogation”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Id. The test does not examine the subjective intent of the police, but rather, whether the officer”
    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.