Nelson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1960
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently June 1994
2 federal appellate · 17 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 72 Okla. Crim. 254 - Herren v. State · 72 Okla. Crim. 1 - Murphy v. State · Chappelle v. State · 70 Okla. Crim. 443 - Sweet v. State · 157 Pa. Super. 95 - Commonwealth v. Summons
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he purpose of the Act ... is to protect the public against blue-sky promotions, and promoters, and other stock transactions not otherwise covered by law. The burden is placed upon the offeror or seller of stock to ascertain if the security may be sold lawfully.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Registration Requirement. “It is unlawful for any person to offer or sell any security in this state unless (1) it is registered under this act or (2) the security or transaction is exempted under section 401. Laws 1959, p. 334 § 301.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““ 'It is the duty of the appellate court to consider all questions apparent on the record, or reserved by bill of exceptions, and it is the duty of appellant to present a correct record which shows affirmatively that the trial court com mitted error. The appellate court looks to the record only, and while it may review all matters which can be intelligently considered and disposed of on the record presented, it can consider only matters properly a part of the record and will not consider an assignment of error unless the alleged error affirmatively appears of record. The record on appeal must be so complete as to enable the reviewing court to pass intelligently on the question presented, otherwise the appeal will be dismissed or the judgment affirmed as the practice may require * * ””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Tolleson 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.