Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 431 P2D 312 - Rath v. LaFon

Rath v. LaFon’s Empirical Analysis

1967

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
2
states following
November 2025
most recently cited

9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently November 2025

9 state decisions

301967197019801990200020102020decided

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 In Re Santillanes · Adams v. Lindell · Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Carroll, Brough, Robinson & Humphrey · Sheldon v. Green · Adams v. Lindell

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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““ * * * we hereby determine that all acts, order, decrees and judgments of the Honorable John Porter entered and/or performed by him in the capacity and while acting as Judge of the Court of Special Sessions of Oklahoma County which have now become final, as well as those similar acts of said court which may attain final status prior to this decision becoming final, are decreed to be valid acts of said judge of said court to the same extent as if the acts were those of a de jure judge of a de jure court. Since we have herein determined that all judgments of the said Honorable John Porter as Judge of the Court of Special Sessions were and are valid to the same extent as the acts of a de jure judge, the law is clear beyond the necessity to cite authority that such acts may not be made the subject of collateral attacks.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “There is no occasion for this court to search for the 'intent' of the Legislature in designating the location of the court in question. . . . 'The presumption is that the legislature expressed its intent in a statute and that it intended what is expressed.'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “that the legislature expressed its intent in a statute and that it intended what is expressed.”
    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.