State v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1958
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently March 2012
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
Relies on 69 Okla. Crim. 397 - Spivey v. State · 94 Okla. Crim. 216 - Stevens v. State · 95 Okla. Crim. 342 - Henderson v. State · 207 Mo. App. 48 - State Ex Rel. L. J. Mueller Furnace Co. v. Buckner · State v. Muldoon
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.
““The Constitutional guaranty of an impartial jury is as follows: ‘In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the county in which the crime shall have been committed.’ Under this provision the defendant in a criminal case has a constitutional right to the deliberation and determination of an impartial, unbiased and qualified juror, and not only of one such juror, nor eleven, but twelve men of that class. To deprive him of the legal right of an unbiased and impartial finding on the evidence, which may be in his favor, is to inflict upon him an injustice of the rankest kind, if he has not in some manner waived the departure from the legal course of procedure.” Art. 2, Sec. 20, Okla.Const.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The state urges that Mr. Murrell held nothing more than a courtesy card from Sheriff Nicholson which did not vest him with the powers of a deputy sheriff. . It is true he filed no bond, nor was his appointment approved by the County Commissioners. It is well to note the courtesy cards referred to repeatedly by the state in its brief were not similar to the deputy sheriff’s commission involved. It should also be noted that the Sheriff, Honorable Bill Nicholson, was the principal witness before the grand jury against the defendant, Tom Smith. The association between Mr. Murrell and Sheriff Nicholson was such that Mr. Murrell’s presence on the jury was practically as objectionable as it would have been if Sheriff Nicholson himself had been on the jury. This fact would militate against Mr. Murrell’s qualification as a fair and impartial grand juror.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Thompson v. State“"The common law, as modified by constitutional and statutory law, judicial decisions and the condition and wants of the people, shall remain in force in aid of the general statutes of Oklahoma; but the rule of the common law, that statutes in derogation thereof, shall be strictly construed, shall not be applicable to any general statute of Oklahoma; but all such statutes shall be liberally construed to promote their object."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Elliott v. Mills
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.