State v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
February 2018
most recently cited
5 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Oregon v. Mathiason · 690 So. 2d 1201 - State v. Hill · 380 So. 2d 792 - Stiles v. Brown · 636 So. 2d 415 - Ex Parte Board of Zoning Adjustment
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"` "Where evidence is presented to the trial court ore tenus in a nonjury case, a presumption of correctness exists as to the court's conclusions on issues of fact; its determination will not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous, without supporting evidence, manifestly unjust, or against the great weight of the evidence. Odom v. Hull, 658 So.2d 442 (Ala.1995)...." "`[ Ex parte Agee, ] 669 So.2d [102,] 104 [(Ala.1995)].'"”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"The test for custody is whether there was a restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest. See Campbell v. State , 718 So.2d 123 , 135 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997) ('In determining whether a suspect is in custody, a court must examine the totality of the circumstances of the situation using the perspective of a reasonable person in the suspect's position.'). Stone v. City of Huntsville , 656 So.2d 404 , 408 (Ala. Crim. App. 1994) (' "[C]ustody arises only if the restraint on freedom [reaches] the degree associated with [a] formal arrest." ')."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Creque v. State“Generally, questioning of a patient-suspect in the hospital does not amount to custodial interrogation when the suspect is not under formal arrest. 3 W. Ringel, Searches and Seizures, Arrests and Confessions § 27.-3(a)(3), at 27-16 (2d ed. 1992). '[T]he particular detention or restriction of movement [of a hospital patient-suspect] must rise to the level of a de facto arrest before an individual will be deemed "in custody”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Creque v. State
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.