Lair v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently November 1989
7 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 113 (Norris-LaGuardia Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 52 (§ 20 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914)
Relies on Allen Bradley Co. v. Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers · American Steel Foundries v. Tri-City Central Trades Council · 26 Okla. Crim. 283 - Polk v. State · State v. Woolman · Allen Bradley Co. v. Local Union No. 3
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““An unlawful assembly is an assembly of three or more persons who, with intent to carry out any common purpose, in such a manner, or so conduct themselves when assembled as to cause persons in the neighborhood of such assembly to fear on reasonable grounds that the person so assembled will disturb the peace tumultously or will, by such assembly, needlessly and without any reasonable occasion, provoke other persons to disturb the peace tumultously. Persons lawfully assembled together may become an unlawful assembly if they conduct themselves with a common purpose, in. such a manner as would have made their assembling unlawful if they had assembled in that manner for that purpose.”'. (Emphasis ours.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Society has assumed labor’s part and discharged its responsibility by recognizing certain procedure as the lawful means of persuasion and picketing. [T]40 O.S.1951, § 166; Ex parte Sweitzer, supra [ 13 Okl.Cr. 154 , 162 P. 1134 ], But, these prescriptions do not countenance threats or acts of violence.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Clark 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.