Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 921 So. 2d 687 - Canete v. State

921 So. 2d 687 - Canete v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2006

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
1
states following
February 2014
most recently cited

16 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Duckworth v. Eagan · California v. Prysock · 874 So. 2d 1225 - Roberts v. State · Beard, Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections v. Hardcastle

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

  1. “[t]he totality of the warning given . . . was sufficient for Canete to readily infer that he had a right to have an attorney present `during' interrogation.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
    e.g. Jackson v. State · 957 So. 2d 1219 - MAB v. State
  2. “If you decide to answer the questions now, without an attorney present, you still have the right not to answer my questions at any time until you can speak with an attorney.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
    e.g. Jackson v. State · 957 So. 2d 1219 - MAB v. State
  3. “that he had the right to the presence of an attorney before [the interrogating officers] could ask him any questions”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
    e.g. 957 So. 2d 1219 - MAB 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.