Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 403 P2D 267 - Walters v. State

Walters v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1965

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
3
states following
June 2006
most recently cited

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

16019651970198019902000decided

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.

  1. ““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 majority
  2. ““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 passage
  3. ““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 majority

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.