Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 298 P2D 1066 - Hill v. State

Hill v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1956

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
December 2005
most recently cited

3 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 97 Okla. Crim. 299 - Brinegar v. State · 70 Okla. Crim. 179 - Hoppes v. State · Lyons v. Worley · Shetsky v. State · Sanders 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““It is clear, then, that where a bystander would tell an officer that he had at a time past witnessed a person commit a crime that would be classed as a misdemeanor, that the officer would not be authorized by law on such information, in the absence of a warrant for arrest, to summarily seek out the accused, and without more, arrest him. But, as may be discovered from a study of the cases cited immediately above, the officer ■ would have a right, and it would be his duty, to seek out and search for a person said to be operating a motor vehicle in a careless and reckless manner, or a surreptitious manner or even where the informant thought the operator intoxicated,”
    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.