Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 752 F.2d 317 - Stumes v. Solem

Stumes v. Solem’s Empirical Analysis

752 F.2d 317 · 1985

Citation profile

76
cited by 76 later decisions
18
states following
July 2018
most recently cited

28 federal appellate · 4 district · 27 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 76 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably Commonwealth v. Mello (1995), United States v. Barahona (1993)

28 federal appellate · 4 district · 27 state decisions — followed in 18 states

3201985199020002010decided

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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Johnson v. Zerbst · Edwards v. Arizona · Kirby v. Illinois · Brewer v. Williams

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

  1. “A defendant can waive his privilege against self-incrimination and the rights that go along with it, provided that the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. Miranda, supra . To determine whether the waiver was made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently, we must look to the particular facts and circumstances surrounding the case, including the background experience, and conduct of the accused. (citations omitted) We must also consider whether the defendant knew of the nature of the offense for which he was charged or suspected....”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “a) whether the police immediately ceased the interrogation upon defendant's request, b) whether they resumed questioning only after the passage of a significant period of time and provided fresh Miranda warnings, and c) whether they restricted later interrogation to a crime that had not been the subject of the first interrogation.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “To require the police to reissue Miranda rights under these circumstances would serve no real purpose. If [the defendant] had thought that the police would ignore his rights even if he asserted them, it is hardly likely that the mere reiteration of the rights would have disabused him of that idea.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.