Looper v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1963
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently April 1985
8 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 United States v. California · 95 Okla. Crim. 60 - Toms v. State · 94 Okla. Crim. 45 - Henderson v. State · 9 Okla. Crim. 241 - Morris v. State · 79 Okla. Crim. 124 - Hamilton 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Counsel on voir dire examination should inquire into all matters within his knowledge which might affect the qualification of the jurors, and where this is not done, the right to challenge a juror or the jury panel, is considered to have been waived. Hamilton v. State, 79 Okl.Cr. 124 , 152 P.2d 291 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Tibbetts v. State · Manuel v. State“"The results of using a lie detector, truth serum, or hypnosis, when offered in evidence for the purpose of establishing the guilt or innocence of an accused, are not admissible the most commonly assigned reason being that such a testing device has not yet attained scientific recognition as a sufficiently reliable and accurate method of determining truth or falsity... ." (Footnotes omitted)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Jones 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.