Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 407 P2D 593 - Sharp v. State

Sharp v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1965

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
1
states following
October 1980
most recently cited

13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently October 1980

13 state decisions

80196519701980decided

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 Harvell v. State · 94 Okla. Crim. 110 - Hathcox v. State · Barber v. State · Dare v. State · Cody 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Evidence of intoxication is admissible to show an absence of the premeditated design to kill, for the purpose of determining whether the offense was murder or manslaughter, and a state of intoxication which will reduce homicide from murder to manslaughter in the first degree must be of such character and extent as to render the defendant incapable of entertaining or forming a design to effect death. And this question is for the jury to determine.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““Homicide is murder in the second degree in the following cases: “1. When perpetrated without authority of law, and with a premeditated design to effect the death of a person, or of any other human being, but by an act not enumerated in the preceding section; “⅛ ⅛ * “3. When perpetrated without any design to effect death by a person engaged in the commission of any felony other than the felonious acts set out in Section 1 of this act.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “"Ordinarily error cannot be predicated upon mere unexplained excerpts from the remarks of counsel to the jury, and 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."”
    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.