Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 854 F.2d 394 - Dunkins v. Thigpen

Dunkins v. Thigpen’s Empirical Analysis

854 F.2d 394 · 1988

Citation profile

89
cited by 89 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
20
states following
February 2018
most recently cited

31 federal appellate · 3 district · 34 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 89 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2018 · most notably Lindsey v. Smith (1989), 585 So. 2d 660 - Willie v. State (1991)

31 federal appellate · 3 district · 34 state decisions — followed in 20 states

3801988199020002010decided

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 Strickland v. Washington · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Edwards v. Arizona · Colorado v. Connelly · Moran v. Burbine

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

  1. “[A] break in custody dissolves a defendant’s Edwards claim. If the police release the defendant, and if the defendant has a reasonable opportunity to contact his attorney, then [there is] no reason why Edwards should bar the admission of any subsequent statements. A break in custody after the invocation of fifth amendment rights ends the need for the Edwards rule. (Emphasis added.)”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “relinquishment of the right was voluntary in the sense that it was the product of a free and deliberate choice rather than intimidation, coercion or deception.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “There is no contention that the break in custody was contrived or pretextual. We do not imply that our holding would be the same in the event of a contrived or pretextual break in custody.”
    2 later decisions 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.