Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2001 OK CR 37 - Jackson v. State

2001 OK CR 37 - Jackson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2001

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
1
states following
August 2020
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently August 2020

3 federal appellate · 9 state decisions

70200120102020decided

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 · Trice v. State · Hale v. State · Stemple v. State · Abshier v. State

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. “a complete concession of guilt is a serious strategic decision that must only be made after consulting with the client and after receiving the client's consent or acquiescence.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(1) Ms. Decator’s murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel (“heinous crime aggravator”); (2) Mr. Jackson killed Ms. Decator for the purpose of avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest or prosecution for a previous crime — the abuse of her child (“avoid arrest aggravator”); (3) Mr. Jackson posed a continuing threat to society because he would probably commit violent acts in the future (“continuing threat aggravator”); and (4) During the commission of the murder of Ms. Decator, Mr. Jackson knowingly created a great risk of death to more than one person — the injured child (“great risk of death aggravator”).”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “there is no per se violation of due process in conceding guilt.”
    1 later decision 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.