Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 800 N.E.2d 667 - State v. Necessary

State v. Necessary’s Empirical Analysis

2003

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
October 2018
most recently cited

3 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Rhode Island v. Innis · Pirtle v. State · White v. State · Ackerman v. State

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

  1. “In Miranda [ ] the United States Supreme Court held that the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. These procedural safeguards include an advisement to the accused that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him, that he has the right to an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him. However, these warnings are only required where a suspect is both in custody and subjected to interrogation.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “at first sight, on first appearance, or on the face of it.”
    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.