Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2002 OKCR 23 - Alexander v. State

Alexander v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
5
states following
March 2021
most recently cited

9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently March 2021

9 state decisions

70200220102020decided

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 Forrester v. White · Pulliam v. Allen · United States v. Mezzanatto · 1999 OK CR 35 - Hagar v. State · Allen 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “A. The designated drug court judge shall make all judicial decisions concerning any case assigned to the drug court docket or program. The judge shall require progress reports and a periodic review of each offender during his or her period of participation in the drug court program or for purposes of collecting costs and fees after completion of the treatment portion of the program. Reports from the treatment providers and the supervising staff shall be presented to the drug court judge as specified by the treatment plan or as ordered by the court. . . . E. The drug court judge shall recognize relapses and restarts in the program which are considered to be part of the rehabilitation and recovery process. The judge shall accomplish monitoring and offender accountability by ordering progressively increasing sanctions or providing incentives, rather than removing the offender from the program when relapse occurs, except when the offender's conduct requires revocation from the program. Any revocation from the drug court program shall require notice to the offender and other participating parties in the case and a revocation hearing. At the revocation hearing, if the offender is found to have violated the conditions of the plea agreement or performance contract and disciplinary sanctions have been insufficient to gain compliance, the offender shall be revoked from the program and sentenced for the offense as provided in the plea agreement. F. Upon application of any participating ”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Whenever possible, a Drug Court team is to be established to oversee implementation of the Drug Court program with regard to each Drug Court participant.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[Tlhe judge overseeing a defendant's Drug Court program is part of that Drug Court team.”
    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.