Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 296 P2D 180 - In Re Potts'petition

In Re Potts'petition’s Empirical Analysis

1956

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
February 1960
most recently cited

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.

  1. ““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.