In Re Potts'petition’s Empirical Analysis
1956
Citation profile
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 70 Okla. Crim. 304 - Ex Parte Meadows · 67 Okla. Crim. 300 - Ex Parte Barnett · 69 Okla. Crim. 235 - Ex Parte Robnett · 87 Okla. Crim. 1 - Ex Parte Bill Kirk · 84 Okla. Crim. 404 - Ex Parte Cook
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It was the duty of the trial court when the petitioners were brought before him to not only advise them that they were entitled to be represented by counsel, but in view of the fact that the petitioners were minors, to have made further inquiry as to the ability of their parents or guardians to employ counsel, and if such minors could not procure counsel, it was the duty of the court to appoint some member of the bar to -represent petitioners. See Ex parte Cook, supra, [ 84 Okl.Cr. 404 ,] 183 P.2d [595], at pages 599-601, for reasons.””
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.