State v. DR’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently July 2011
2 federal appellate · 21 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
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Berkemer v. McCarty · Bibby v. United States · California v. Beheler · Daniel v. Security Pacific National Bank
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a reasonable 14-year-old in D.R.'s position would have reasonably supposed his freedom of action was curtailed”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“Here, the officer informed child that he was not under arrest, did not have to speak and could leave if he wanted to. The officer clearly made an effort to be unimposing in dress and demeanor. Child is 13 years old and in junior high school. The interview environment was familiar to him. Although he had never been interviewed by a police officer, child possessed considerable experience with the rules regarding interviews in the principal’s office. We hold that, given the totality of the circumstances, the setting in which the interview took place was not “compelling.” Accordingly, no Miranda warnings were required and the juvenile court did not err in denying child’s motion to suppress.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“failure to inform him he was free to leave, D.R.'s youth, the naturally coercive nature of the school and principal's office environment for children of his age, and the obviously accusatory nature of the interrogation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. SJW · In Re Jorge D.
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.