Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 295 P2D 819 - Pumpkin v. State

Pumpkin v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1956

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
2
states following
January 1985
most recently cited

9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently January 1985

9 state decisions

401956196019701980decided

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 Commonwealth v. Turza · Commonwealth v. Marshall · Commonwealth v. Puglise · Gray v. Commonwealth · Edmonds 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. ““. . . Where the defendant desires definition of a term, he should request the same. Fooshee v. State, 3 Okl.Cr. 666 , 108 P. 554 , holds the failure of the court to define a legal term used in its instruction, where the defendant makes no request for definition of a term, is no ground for reversal. Roberts v. State, 29 Okl.Cr. 64 , 232 P. 450 . Logan v. State, 42 Okl.Cr. 1 , 274 P. 39, 41 , holds: “ ‘ “If the defendant wanted the term defined, he should have requested the court to define . . . [the same].” ’ ””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““Direct and positive proof is not essential to establish the corpus delicti, and it may be proved by circumstantial evidence. When it is proved by circumstantial evidence, the question should be submitted to the jury along with other questions of fact in the case, as to whether or not the state has established the corpus delicti beyond a reasonable doubt.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““[T]he order of proof is generally matter for the discretion of the trial court, where the subsequent matter sufficiently establishes the corpus delicti.””
    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.