United States v. Rutledge’s Empirical Analysis
900 F.2d 1127 · 1990
Citation profile
96 federal appellate · 3 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 143 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably United States v. Male Juvenile (1997), Cooper v. Dupnik (1992)
96 federal appellate · 3 district · 10 state decisions
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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Colorado v. Connelly · Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc. · Estelle v. Smith · 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 143 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“far from making the police a fiduciary of the suspect, the law permits the police to pressure and cajole, conceal material facts, and actively mislead”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“allowed to play on a suspect's ignorance, his anxieties, his fears, and his uncertainties.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““If the officers, fully intending to use anything [the defendant] said against him, had said to him, ‘Tell us all you know about the drug trade, and we promise you that nothing you tell us will be used against you,’ then he would have a strong argument that any ensuing confession had been extracted by fraud and was involuntary. . . . For in our hypothetical case the officers would have deflected [the defendant] from weighing the pros and cons of confessing and going in the direction that the balance leaned. Alternatively, [the defendant] could in our hypothetical case hold the government to its promise, and could do so whether or not the promise was fraudulent.””
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.