Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 705 A.2d 957 - State v. Lambert

State v. Lambert’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
2
states following
January 2019
most recently cited

11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently January 2019

11 state decisions

50199720002010decided

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 Fare v. Michael C. · Haley v. Ohio · State v. Lerner · State v. Campbell · State v. McGranahan

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

  1. “(only) if [the] defendant knowingly and intentionally aided and abetted [the crime] could he be held responsible for the natural, or reasonable, or probable consequences of that act.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “In Rhode Island, the absence of a parent, a guardian, or an interested adult at the time of waiver does not, alone, render the waiver constitutionally infirm inasmuch as a juvenile has no constitutional right to have an adult present at an interrogation. Therefore, in the absence of a statutorily imposed affirmative duty on police officials to locate a parent, guardian, or interested adult prior to advising a juvenile in custody of his or her rights and taking a statement from that juvenile, the police are under no obligation to do so. We decline defendant’s invitation to impose such an obligation judicially and adhere to the view that, in the context of juvenile waivers, “[w]e are not prepared to place further requirements upon police officers beyond those suggested by the Supreme Court of the United States [in Fare ].””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““(1) the statement was incriminating or accusatory; (2) that it was one to which an innocent person in the situation of the defendant would reply; (3) that it was made within the presence and hearing of the defendant; (4) that he understood the meaning of the statement; and (5) that he had an opportunity to deny or reply to the statement.” Id.”
    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.