Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 843 F.2d 836 - Plazinich v. Lynaugh

Plazinich v. Lynaugh’s Empirical Analysis

843 F.2d 836 · 1988

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
3
states following
August 2016
most recently cited

16 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently August 2016 · most notably Collazo v. Estelle (1991), United States v. Taylor (1993)

16 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

1701988199020002010decided

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 · Edwards v. Arizona · Jackson v. Denno · Rhode Island v. Innis · Miller v. Fenton

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

  1. “the motivating factor behind the Edwards rule is to protect against and to discourage police interference with the free exercise of the right to counsel.... [T]he cases following Edwards are clearly indicative to us that in the absence of some police interference with the exercise of the right to counsel of the accused, the Edwards rule is to be strictly and narrowly applied.... Our court has, in other words, rejected an interpretation of Edwards' prophylactic rule that is divorced from the context of badgering police conduct from which the rule sprang.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[The officer’s] information concerning [the defendant’s accomplice] was not objectively likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect, who had just minutes before declined to be interrogated. In the brief and informal context in which it was made, the comment could at most be characterized as offering [the defendant] food for thought rather than seeking to provoke an incriminating response.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “having expressed his desire to deal with the police only through counsel, is not subject to further interrogation by the authorities until counsel has been made available to him, unless the accused himself initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police.”
    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.