Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 893 SW2D 80 - Lee v. State

Lee v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1994

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
1
states following
July 1999
most recently cited

13 state decisions

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Texas 238th Judicial District Court)

Relationships

Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Brady v. State of Maryland · Berkemer v. McCarty · California v. Trombetta · Arizona v. Youngblood

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

  1. “We are unaware of any rule of law which forbids lawfully constituted officers of the law from requesting persons to accompany them, or of providing transportation to the police station or some other relevant place in furtherance of an investigation of a crime.... Nor are we aware of any rule of law which forbids one to reject such request. If the circumstances show that the transportee is acting only upon the invitation, request, or even urging of the police, and there are no threats, express or implied, that he will be taken forcibly, the accompaniment is voluntary, and such person is not then in custody. In other words, under those circumstances, such person has not “been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.” Miranda v. Ari zona, [ 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) ].”
    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.