Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 719 P2D 612 - Cheatham v. State

Cheatham v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
4
states following
April 2010
most recently cited

1 district · 20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently April 2010

1 district · 20 state decisions

1001986199020002010decided

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 · Johnson v. Zerbst · Edwards v. Arizona · Doyle v. Ohio · North Carolina v. Butler

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

  1. “Well I don't care, I'd like to see a lawyer, too you know”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “First Cheatham argues that there was no evidence that he acted without malice, and, since one element of the crime of involuntary manslaughter is the absence of malice, the state has failed to prove a violation of the statute.... Cheatham’s assumption that an essential element of the crime of involuntary manslaughter is the absence of malice is not well founded. Those words in the statute were adopted to distinguish involuntary manslaughter from the more serious crimes of homicide. They do not have the effect of making absence of malice an essential element of the crime.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “It is concededly improper and reversible error to comment on the failure of a defendant to testify in his own behalf, and the test is whether the language used was manifestly intended or was of such character that the jury would naturally and necessarily take it to be a comment on the failure of the accused to testify. [Citation.] It is not improper for the government to draw attention to the failure of lack of evidence on a point if it is not intended to call attention to the failure of the defendant to testify. ⅜ ⅝ ⅜ ⅜ ⅝ ⅝”
    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.