Cortez v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently June 2017
16 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 92 Okla. Crim. 182 - Martin v. State · 70 Okla. Crim. 246 - Coleman v. State · 84 Okla. Crim. 211 - Perry v. State · Green v. State · 35 Okla. Crim. 103 - Stuart 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In order for a person to secure immunity under the above section of Constitution on account of incriminating evidence given by him as a witness in any court, he must have testified under an agreement made with the prosecuting attorney, approved by the court, or he must have claimed the privilege of silence which must have been denied by the court and such person must have been compelled by the court to testify.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. ASHTON v. STATE · ASHTON v. STATE““Jurors will not be permitted to impeach or contradict their verdict by affidavits, or otherwise, after they have been discharged from the jury and mingled with the public.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Munn v. State · Daniels v. State“The defendant has interposed in this case as one of his defenses what is known in law as an alibi. That is, that the defendant was at another and different place at the time of the commission of the crime charged. The law is that such a defense is proper and legitimate and the jury should consider all of the evidence bearing upon this point whether introduced by the state or the defendant, and if after a careful consideration of all of the evidence in the case the jury entertain a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant was present at the time and place where the crime was committed, if it was committed, then and in that event the jury should give the defendant the benefit of the doubt and acquit him.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ashinsky 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.