Tate v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 state decisions

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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A. The designated drug court judge shall make all judicial decisions concerning any case assigned to the drug court docket or program. The judge shall require progress reports and a periodic review of each offender during his or her period of participation in the drug court program or for purposes of collecting costs and fees after completion of the treatment portion of the program. Reports from the treatment providers and the supervising staff shall be presented to the drug court judge as specified by the treatment plan or as ordered by the court. . . . E. The drug court judge shall recognize relapses and restarts in the program which are considered to be part of the rehabilitation and recovery process. The judge shall accomplish monitoring and offender accountability by ordering progressively increasing sanctions or providing incentives, rather than removing the offender from the program when relapse occurs, except when the offender's conduct requires revocation from the program. Any revocation from the drug court program shall require notice to the offender and other participating parties in the case and a revocation hearing. At the revocation hearing, if the offender is found to have violated the conditions of the plea agreement or performance contract and disciplinary sanctions have been insufficient to gain compliance, the offender shall be revoked from the program and sentenced for the offense as provided in the plea agreement. F. Upon application of any participating ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. D. A. v. STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA STATE BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

2. “Unless the defendant makes both showings, it cannot be said that the conviction . . . resulted from a breakdown in the adversary process that renders the result unreliable.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 2016 OK CR 30 - FULGHAM v. STATE

3. “Sections I through 12 of this act shall be known and may be cited as the "Oklahoma Drug court Act".”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. D. A. v. STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA STATE BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION