Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2000 OKCR 15 - Wackerly v. State

Wackerly v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2000

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
1
states following
April 2024
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 27 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently April 2024 · most notably 2006 OK CR 19 - Hogan v. State (2006), Lott v. State (2004)

7 federal appellate · 27 state decisions

200200020102020decided

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 Strickland v. Washington · Illinois v. Gates · Batson v. Kentucky · Williams v. Taylor · Franks v. Delaware

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

  1. “However, when there have been numerous irregularities during the course of the trial that tend to prejudice the rights of the defendant, reversal will be required if the cumulative effect of all the errors was to deny the defendant a fair trial.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “This Court has held that '[i]t is the duty of counsel to examine jurors on voir dire. Counsel then must discover any facts affecting their qualifications and then reasonably raise any objection that might exist as to any member of the panel.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “To determine this issue, we ask whether the warrant would have been issued if the judge had been given accurate information.”
    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.