Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 952 F.2d 1282 - Jacobs v. Singletary

Jacobs v. Singletary’s Empirical Analysis

952 F.2d 1282 · 1992

Citation profile

86
cited by 86 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
9
states following
January 2017
most recently cited

32 federal appellate · 4 district · 11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 86 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2017 · most notably Thompson v. Keohane (1995), 803 So. 2d 598 - Connor v. State (2001)

32 federal appellate · 4 district · 11 state decisions

450199220002010decided

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 · Brady v. State of Maryland · Chapman v. State of California · United States v. Bagley · United States v. Agurs

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

  1. “We review state court evidentiary rulings on a petition for habeas corpus to determine only 'whether the error, if any, was of such a magnitude as to deny petitioner his right to a fair trial.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Once warnings have been given, the subsequent procedure is clear. If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease. At this point, he has shown that he intends to exercise his Fifth Amendment privilege; any statement taken after the person invokes his privilege cannot be other than the product of compulsion, subtle or otherwise.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “are so routine that they cannot be fairly said to represent a desire on the part of an accused to open up a more generalized discussion relating directly or indirectly to the investigation. Such inquiries or statements, by either an accused or a police officer, relating to routine incidents of the custodial relationship, will not generally ‘initiate’ a conversation[.]”
    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.