Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 321 P.2d 724 - Phillips v. State

Phillips v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1958

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
December 2002
most recently cited

5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently December 2002

5 state decisions

20195819601970198019902000decided

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 96 Okla. Crim. 231 - Traxler v. State · Rose Powers, as Administratrix of the Goods, Chattels, and Credits of Edward J. Powers, Deceased v. The New York Central Railroad Company · 82 Okla. Crim. 276 - Tillman v. State · 97 Okla. Crim. 158 - Sholes v. State · 24 Okla. Crim. 292 - Huffman 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Where there is competent evidence in the record from which the jury could reasonably conclude that defendant was guilty as charged, the Criminal Court of Appeals will not interfere with verdict, even if there is a sharp conflict in the evidence and different inferences may be drawn therefrom, since it is the exclusive province of the jury to * * * determine the facts.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““Ladies and Gentlemen” “You are instructed that for the State to sustain the charge against the defendant of larceny of an automobile, it is necessary for the State to prove specifically that the automobile was taken by the accused with felonious intent to deprive the owner thereof permanently and to convert the automobile to accused’s own use. “Any taking of personalty with intent to deprive the owner thereof temporarily and then to return the personalty does not constitute larceny, but is a trespass, since the taking must be to deprive the owner permanently of the property to constitute a felonious intent. * * * ””
    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.