Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 336 P2D 925 - Privitt v. State

Privitt v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1959

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
1
states following
August 1981
most recently cited

7 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on People v. Tom Woo · 2 Okla. Crim. 362 - Sturgis v. State · 55 Cal. App. 103 - People v. Norrington · 2 Okla. Crim. 519 - De Graff v. State · 112 Cal. App. 68 - People v. Jones

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. ““The indictment or information must charge but one offense, but where the same acts may constitute different offenses, or the proof may be uncertain as to which of two or more offenses the accused may be guilty of, the different offenses may be set forth in separate counts in the same indictment or information and the accused may be convicted of either offense, and the court or jury trying the cause may find all or either of the persons guilty of either of the offenses charged, and the same offense may be set forth in different forms or degrees under different counts; and where the offense may be committed by the use of different means, the means may be alleged in the alternative in the same count.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““On a charge of assault with intent to rape, what the assailant meant to do, and the manner in which he intended to accomplish his purpose, whether by persuasion, force, or fear, is a question of fact to be determined by the jury; and an appellate court should not disturb their finding simply because conflicting inferences may reasonably be deduced from the evidence.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““The same indictment or information may contain two counts provided the averments in the indictment or information show that both counts are based upon one and the same transaction; and upon trial the accused may be convicted of either of the offenses. [Citations omitted] Such is the situation herein and the information is not duplicitous.””
    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.