Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 934 P2D 1367 - People v. Sapp

People v. Sapp’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
5
states following
December 2020
most recently cited

13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently December 2020

13 state decisions

701997200020102020decided

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 · Colorado v. Connelly · Garrity v. State of New Jersey · Minnesota v. Murphy · Lefkowitz v. Turley

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

  1. “You are entitled to all rights and privileges guaranteed by the laws and the Constitution of this State and the Constitution of the United States, including the right not to be compelled to incriminate yourself in a criminal matter, however, this is not a criminal investigation. I further wish to advise you that if you refuse to testify or to answer questions relating to the performance of your official duties or fitness for duty, you will be subject to administrative charges which could result in your dismissal from the Sheriff's Office. If you do answer, neither your statements nor any information or evidence which is gained by reason of such statements can be used against you in any subsequent criminal proceeding.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[tlhe state must have played a significant role in creating the impression that [defendants] might be discharged for asserting the privilege for their beliefs to be considered objectively reasonable. To be significant, the state's role in creating such beliefs must have been more coercive than the requirement that a witness testify truthfully.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “statements are compelled by threat of discharge from employment where: (1) a person subjectively believes that he will be fired for asserting the Fifth Amendment privilege, and (2) that belief is objectively reasonable under the circumstances.”
    1 later decision 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.