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.
““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 passagee.g. Ethridge v. State““ * * * [ 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 passagee.g. Wilson v. State““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 passagee.g. Ivy 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.