Krantz v. Briggs’s Empirical Analysis
983 F.2d 961 · 1993
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Oregon v. Mathiason · Sumner v. Mata · California v. Beheler · 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A defendant is in custody when, based upon a review of all the pertinent facts, 'a reasonable innocent person in such circumstances would conclude that after brief questioning he or she would not be free to leave.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“This presumption applies only to factual determinations made by a state court after a hearing on the merits.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Foust v. Calderon“[W]hether a defendant is 'in custody' for purposes of Miranda is a factual determination.”
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.