Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 178 Kan. 337 - State v. Oldham

State v. Oldham’s Empirical Analysis

1955

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
1
states following
February 1981
most recently cited

14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently February 1981

14 state decisions

601955196019701980decided

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 Johnson v. Zerbst · Willis v. Hunter · Brandt v. Hudspeth · Current v. Hudspeth · Davis v. Hudspeth

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. ““The constitutional right of an accused to counsel is a matter of substance not form, and it is the solemn duty of a trial court to make sure that representation is not an empty gesture, but is a fulfillment of the spirit and purpose of the constitutional mandate. (Willis v. Hunter, 166 F. 2d 721 .)” (p. 338.)”
    3 later decisions 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.