Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 274 P.2d 402 - Stevens v. State

Stevens v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1954

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
2
states following
October 1975
most recently cited

7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently October 1975

7 state decisions

40195419601970decided

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 97 Okla. Crim. 299 - Brinegar v. State · 70 Okla. Crim. 179 - Hoppes v. State · 71 Okla. Crim. 330 - In Re Flowers · 4 Okla. Crim. 309 - Steen v. State · Nichols v. Territory of Oklahoma

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

  1. ““A motion to suppress is usually interposed where it is claimed that the affidavit for a search warrant is void, or that the search warrant is void, or defective. However, where the defendant, as here, interposes an oral objection to the introduction of evidence outlined by the county attorney in his opening statement, on the ground of illegal search and seizure, and again objects to the introduction of the contraband on the ground of illegal search and seizure even though the defendants offer no evidence if the evidence of the State so objected to discloses an unlawful search and seizure, it would be the duty of the court to strike from the consideration of the jury such objectionable evidence. So that in the within case, if the search and seizure was illegal it would be the duty of the court to reverse the case, as such evidence stricken would leave the State with insufficient evidence to make out a case.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““The officers would have a right, however, if, from the situation that would confront them it was deemed necessary in order to prevent the escape of the prisoner, or for their own protection, they might search the motorist and all the persons in the car; . . . .””
    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.