Walters v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently June 2006 · most notably Lusby v. Stores, Inc. (1984), Graves v. Thomas (2006)
2 federal appellate · 25 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 · 94 Okla. Crim. 45 - Henderson v. State · 96 Okla. Crim. 231 - Traxler v. State · Muscoe v. Commonwealth · Roberson 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The granting of a new trial on the ground of newly discovered testimony is a matter largely within the trial court’s discretion and is not to be exercised except where there is reasonable probability that, if such evidence had been introduced, different results would have been reached. . . . ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ward v. State · Daniels v. State““If the official character of the officer is known to the person sought to be arrested, or if the officer informs him of his official character and his reason for the arrest, and the person sought to be arrested has no reason to apprehend any treatment other than detention, he is not justified in the use of a deadly weapon in resisting the arrest.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Potter v. State““Where evidence is urged by defendant on a motion for new trial on the ground the same is newly discovered, it must be established that the same, if existing at the time of trial, could not have been procured before trial by the exercise of due diligence, and failure to do so constitutes a bar to a new trial on such ground. Title 22 O.S.A. § 952.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Stark 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.