Young v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1960
Citation profile
19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently June 1995
19 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 84 Okla. Crim. 97 - Sadler v. State · 94 Okla. Crim. 110 - Hathcox v. State · 72 Okla. Crim. 1 - Murphy v. State · 7 Okla. Crim. 590 - Watson v. State · 94 Okla. Crim. 145 - Mott 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“. “Ordinarily, error cannot be predicated on 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.” Herren v. State, 74 Okl.Cr. 424 , 127 P.2d 384, 215 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Sharp v. State · Cook v. State““The giving of instructions, whether correct or not, which are abstract or are not authorized by the pleadings and evidence, will not constitute a ground for reversal where, under the circumstances, no prejudice results to accused; and the presumption is that an instruction having no application to the case made by the pleadings and proof does not injure accused. This rule is particularly applicable where accused’s guilt is clearly established by the evidence.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Box v. State““Counsel for a defendant must not only object to alleged improper statements of 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, when this is done, such remarks do not constitute reversible error, unless the remarks were of such a character that the error would not be cured by a withdrawal of the remarks.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Sharp 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.