Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 191 Okla. 248 - Killian v. Burnham

Killian v. Burnham’s Empirical Analysis

1942

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
2
states following
April 1993
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently April 1993

2 federal appellate · 9 state decisions

40194219501960197019801990decided

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 In re Hook · In Re Thompson's Estate v. Thompson · State Ex Rel. Foot v. District Court · 6 Okla. Crim. 495 - In Re Powell · Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Canada

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

  1. ““Does the fact of the marriage of the child remove her from the protection of the Juvenile Act, and deprive the court of jurisdiction to commit her as a delinquent child? We think not. We find nothing in the statute indicating an intention on the part of the Legislature to make such an exception. The first section (§ 101) provides that the act ‘shall apply to any child under the age of sixteen years not an inmate of a State institution incorporated under the laws of this State.’ * * * “Section 101 makes an exception in favor of those children who are inmates of a State institution. The Legislature having made no other exceptions, this court is not at liberty to make one. While the question is one of statutory construction, we point out that the majority view in other states is in harmony with our view. In re Hook, 95 Vt. 497 , 115 A. 730 , 19 A. L. R. 610; State ex rel. Foot v. District Court, 77 Mont. 290 , 250 P. 973 , 49 A. L. A. 398; 31 Am. Jur. 793 ; Richardson v. Browning, 57 App. D. C. 186, 18 F. 2d 1008 . Petitioners cite Ex parte Lewis, 3 Cal. App. 738 , 86 P. 996 , which however, is . in conflict with a later opinion of the same court in Ex parte Willis, 30 Cal. App. 188 , 157 P. 819 . “We conclude that Francis Wood was, on July 18, 1940, a ‘child’ as that term is used in the Juvenile Act, despite the fact that she was then married. Ex parte Rothrock, 19 Okla. Cr. 234 , 199 P. 581 .””
    2 later decisions 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.