Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 374 P2D 929 - Flint v. Sater

Flint v. Sater’s Empirical Analysis

1962

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
3
states following
May 1990
most recently cited

5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently May 1990

5 state decisions

201962197019801990decided

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 Leon v. Klinger · 85 Okla. Crim. 322 - Ex Parte Lewis · Brown v. State Election Board · Darby-Lynde Co. v. Alexander · Baker v. Newton

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. ““In cases involving a felony it is fundamental that the accused must be taken before a magistrate * * * for a preliminary hearing (instituted by complaint), who must conduct an examination, if the same be not waived, as here-inbefore set forth. * * * [A]nd if he be held to answer a charge of the commission of a public offense, he shall endorse the same on the complaint. * * [A]nd the accused shall be held for proceedings in the district court upon indictment returned by a grand jury, which proceeding is not involved herein. We know of no .other way that a district court can acquire jurisdiction of a felony charge. * * * ‘The jurisdiction of the district court rests upon the findings of a magistrate in a preliminary hearing.’ * * * ” (Emphasis added, and citations omitted.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““If he be found presently sane, the case should proceed to trial on its merits. If, on the other hand, it is determined by the jury that he is presently insane, he should be committed to a State Mental Institution until he is capable of standing trial. “When he is returned for trial, the prior preliminary hearing being a nullity because of defendant’s insanity, it becomes the trial court’s mandatory duty to order a new preliminary hearing. The defendant could, of course, waive his right to preliminary hearing and proceed to trial.” 374 P.2d at 932 and 933.”
    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.