World Publishing Co. v. White’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently November 2025 · most notably Keating v. Edmondson (2001), Powers v. DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA COUNTY (2009)
1 federal appellate · 26 state decisions
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 Davis v. Alaska · Globe Newspaper Company v. Superior Court for County of Norfolk · Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn · Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co. · American Steamship Owners Mutual Protection & Indemnity Ass'n v. United States Lines, Inc.
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“in conformance to or in agreement with; or according to a standard.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“"F. Except as otherwise required by state or federal law, the confidential records listed in subsection A of this section may only be inspected, released, disclosed, corrected or ex punged pursuant to an order of the court. Except as otherwise provided in Section 601.6 of this title or any provision of this chapter, no subpoena or subpoena duces tecum purporting to compel disclosure of confidential information or any confidential juvenile record shall be valid. G. An order of the court authorizing the inspection, release, disclosure, correction or ex-pungement of confidential records shall be entered by the court only after a review of the records by the court and a determination by the court, with due regard for the confidentiality of the records and the privacy of persons identified in the records, that a compelling reason exists and such inspection, release or disclosure is necessary for the protection of a legitimate public or private interest. Except for district attorney records, any court order authorizing the disclosure, release or inspection of a confidential juvenile record may be conditioned on such terms and restrictions as the court deems necessary and appropriate. H. Upon the filing of a petition for inspection, release, disclosure, or correction of a juvenile record, the court shall set a date for a hearing and shall provide a thirty-day notice to all interested parties, the person who is the subject of the record if the person is eighteen (18) years of age or ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“generally signifies a legislative command. Davis v. GHS Health Maintenance, 22 P.3d 1204 , 2001 OK 3, ¶ 9 ; United States through Farmers Home Admin. v. Hobbs, 1996 OK 77, ¶ 7 , 921 P.2d 338 ; State ex rel. Macy v. Freeman, 1991 OK 59, ¶ 8 , 814 P.2d 147 . Nevertheless, the term can be permissive. Minie v. Hudson, 1997 OK 26, ¶ 7 , 934 P.2d 1082 ; Texaco, Inc. v. City of Oklahoma City, 1980 OK 169, ¶ 9 , 619 P.2d 869 . [36] See note, 27, supra. [37] The trustees motion for summary judgment and brief in support, filed on April 2, 2001, provides in pertinent part at p. 1:”
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.