Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 159 Okla. 87 - Cudd v. State

Cudd v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1932

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
December 1951
most recently cited

4 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Ratzlaff v. State · In Re Comstock · Anderson v. State · 7 Okla. Crim. 316 - Bowes v. State · Pool v. Riegal

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

  1. ““Complaint is made because the child was permitted to be present while the mother of the complaining witness was upon the stand and to be identified as the child in question. There was no attempt made by the prosecution to exhibit the child to the jury and show paternity by alleged points of resemblance and appearance between the child and plaintiff in error, as was done in the Ratzlaff case, supra, and other similar cases relied on by plaintiff in error. . . . The mere presence of the child while the witness was testifying was not of itself prejudicial to the plaintiff in error when no comment was made by the prosecution upon its appearance.””
    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.