Holt v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1955
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently June 1998
11 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 82 Okla. Crim. 276 - Tillman v. State · 94 Okla. Crim. 122 - Stanley v. State · 63 Okla. Crim. 203 - Bradley v. State · 64 Okla. Crim. 112 - Skelley v. State · 54 Okla. Crim. 82 - Lawrence 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"It is the duty of the court to instruct the jury from both the standpoint of the state and the defendant; and the defendant had right to have a clear affirmative charge based upon the hypothesis that his testimony and the testimony of his witnesses was true, when this testimony affects a material issue in the case."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Fleming v. State““ * * * [T]he jury must be advised of defendant’s theory of defense where there is evidence to support it, even though such evidence is discredited. The question is a fact one for the determination of the jury, and it is the function of the jury to weigh the evidence.” 278 P.2d, at 857 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. White v. State“"Defendant has the right to have a clear and affirmative instruction given to jury, applicable to his defense, based upon hypothesis that it is true, when such evidence affects a material issue in the case."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Fleming 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.