Payne v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1954
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently July 1987
16 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 4 Okla. Crim. 467 - Brunson v. State · 69 Okla. Crim. 103 - Gregg v. State · 15 Okla. Crim. 176 - Temple v. State · 90 Okla. Crim. 276 - Kilpatrick v. State · 29 Okla. Crim. 112 - Berg 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * In Kilpatrick v. State, 90 Okl.Cr. 276 , 213 P.2d 584 : “ ‘Only those allegations in an indictment or information which involve the guilt of a defendant are to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The venue of an offense does not come within this class, but there must be some proof of venue. “ ‘Venue may be proved by circumstantial evidence.’ “In the body of the opinion it was further said: “ ‘It is solely a question of the court’s jurisdiction over the particular offense alleged in the information.’ “In Swift v. State, 92 Okl.Cr. 43 , 220 P.2d [300], 302, it is said: “ ‘ * * * and venue need not be shown beyond a reasonable doubt.’ “To the same effect is Vanderslice v. State, 59 Okl.Cr. 192 , 57 P.2d 267 ; Dismore v. State, 60 Okl.Cr. 346 , 44 P.2d 894 ; Flannigan v. State, 55 Okl.Cr. 328 , 29 P.2d 989 ; Ford v. State, 52 Okl.Cr. 321 , 5 P.2d 170 ; Rodgers v. State, 50 Okl.Cr. 363 , 297 P. 823 ; Womble v. State, 50 Okl.Cr. 108 , 296 P. 515 ; Burton v. State, 50 Okl.Cr. 33 , 295 P. 622 ; Hatfield v. State, 49 Okl.Cr. 41 , 292 P. 1058 ; Neal v. State, 48 Okl.Cr. 410 , 292 P. 571 ; Cole v. State, 34 Okl.Cr. 366 , 246 P. 653 ; Groh v. State, 30 Okl.Cr. 396 , 236 P. 435 ; Steele v. State, 28 Okl.Cr. 335 , 230 P. 760 ; Edwards v. State, 25 Okl.Cr. 167 , 219 P. 427 ; Jentho v. State, 19 Okl.Cr. 434 , 200 P. 251 ; Arnold v. State, 15 Okl.Cr. 519 , 178 P. 897 . “In the Steele case, supra, this court said [ 28 Okl.Cr. 335 , 230 P. 761 ]: “ ‘It cannot be said that there is no p”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Pettigrew v. State““The indictment or information must charge but one offense, but where the same acts may constitute different offenses, or the proof may be uncertain as to which of two or more offenses the accused may be guilty of, the different offenses may be set forth in separate counts in the same indictment or information and the accused may be convicted of either offense, * * * ”.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Castle v. State““The information does not charge two offenses. It only charges the commission of one offense, to-wit, manslaughter in the first degree, but it does allege different acts which were committed by the defendant which would constitute the offense of manslaughter in the first degree.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hammonds v. State
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.