McCormick v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1954
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently May 1993
2 federal appellate · 6 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 84 Okla. Crim. 97 - Sadler v. State · 84 Okla. Crim. 309 - Finley v. State · DeWolf v. State · 21 Okla. Crim. 193 - Anderson v. State · 96 Okla. Crim. 347 - Gillaspy 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A most careful reading and re-reading of the affidavit filed for a continuance in the instant case discloses that said affidavit does not contain the necessary averment that the affiant, the defendant, believes that the facts that the absent witness, Kessenger, as averred in said affidavit, would testify to, are true, nor is there anything in said affidavit from which it can be construed that the facts which it is averred that said witness would testify to are believed by the affiant, the defendant; and this failure to comply with the requirements of said section 5045 (12 O.S-. 1951 § 668), that the defendant believed that the evidence which it is averred in the said affidavit the absent witness, Kessenger, would furnish, is true, fully .sustains the trial court in overruling the motion for continuance; * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Crosswhite v. State““Continuances are matters controlled by statute, or within the trial court’s sound discretion, and absence of counsel is not a statutory ground but is a matter within the trial court’s discretion. “It is not error to overrule defendant’s motion for continuance on the ground of the absence of leading counsel where the defendant is duly represented by his other counsel, able and experienced lawyers particularly where the record shows that defendant was not thus deprived of making substantial defense to the charge and especially where it appears that the alleged leading counsel did not appear of record in the case until the day before trial.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Disheroon 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.