Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 357 P2D 236 - Disheroon v. State

Disheroon v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1960

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
1
states following
January 1981
most recently cited

27 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently January 1981 · most notably Roberts v. State (1970), Harvell v. State (1964)

27 state decisions

150196019701980decided

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 94 Okla. Crim. 110 - Hathcox v. State · State v. Sullivan · 75 Okla. Crim. 275 - Dunbar v. State · Clark, Kilburn and Kilburn v. Commonwealth · Maiden v. Commonwealth

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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““In the trial of a criminal case, questions of fact involving the guilt or innocence of the accused are always for the jury, and when, on appeal, the record discloses facts which would have been sufficient either to warrant a verdict of acquittal or to support a verdict of guilty, the finding of the jury will not be disturbed. In such cases only errors of law will be reviewed.””
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““Ordinarily error cannot be predicated upon mere unexplained excerpts from the remarks of counsel to the jury. Enough must appear of record to advise the appellate court of what preceded the alleged objectionable remarks and their meaning to be deduced from the context, and whether or not they were invited or provoked by remarks made by opposing counsel.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““Counsel for a defendant must not only object to alleged improper statements of the county attorney in his argument to the jury, but he must go further and move the court to exclude such remarks from the jury and instruct them not to consider them for any purpose, unless the remarks were of such a character that the error would not be cured by a withdrawal of the remarks.””
    2 later decisions 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.