Lee v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1956
Citation profile
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 85 Okla. Crim. 25 - Hughes v. State · 72 Okla. Crim. 393 - Wagner v. State · 95 Okla. Crim. 280 - Le Blanc v. State · In Re the Estate of Randall · 68 Okla. Crim. 431 - James 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It should be distinctly understood that what may be hereinafter said, is not intended as a modification of the foregoing rule, but constitutes a special application of law to the facts herein presented. It should also be remembered that this case is not the ordinary situation supported by timely objection, for here the county attorney made no objection to the inquiry but both himself and the trial court permitted the same to proceed without objection.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hice 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.