Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 283 P.2d 578 - Shaffer v. State

Shaffer v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1955

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
October 1969
most recently cited

9 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 64 Okla. Crim. 382 - Luellen v. State · 89 Okla. Crim. 294 - Ladd v. State · 97 Okla. Crim. 180 - Mougell v. State · 39 Okla. Crim. 32 - Nichols 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. ““Furthermore, this record does not disclose that under the provisions of T. 22, § 831, O.S. 1951, the information was read to the jury, by the Clerk or County Attorney, and that an opening statement was made by the County Attorney. Probably the information was read; if not, on the new trial this provision of law should not be overlooked. * * * ””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““ * * * [ W] e have held many times it is the defendant’s right to request the jury fix the penalty as provided in Section 926, supra, and it was the court’s duty to abide by the statutes in regard thereto. Mougell v. State, 97 Okl.Cr. 180 , 260 P.2d 447 .””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““An examination of this Instruction (No. 5) reveals that it was an attempt to expand on the law, as announced in Instruction No. 4, defining drunk driving. Instruction No. 4 was a correct Instruction, Luellen v. State, 64 Okl.Cr. 382 , 81 P.2d 323 .””
    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.