Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 435 P2D 181 - Hobbs v. State

Hobbs v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1967

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
March 1982
most recently cited

9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently March 1982

9 state decisions

60196719701980decided

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 86 Okla. Crim. 323 - Crabb v. State · Goodnight v. State · 34 Okla. Crim. 131 - Pryor v. State · Alexander 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““ . . . [T]his court has uniformly held that in order to support a conviction for larceny of domestic animals, it is necessary to allege and prove the ownership of the animal stolen, and a felonious intent on the part of the taker to deprive the owner thereof and to convert the same to his, the taker’s own use.” (Citations omitted)”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““The Alexander case is correct, but those elements required to be proved are questions of fact for the jury to decide. It is axiomatic that intent may be inferred from the commission of the crime itself, in the absence of some evidence to the contrary. The jury had all the facts before it, had an opportunity to observe the witnesses on the stand, and concluded that the State produced sufficient evidence to prove all the elements of the offense.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “This court has been consistent in its holdings that though there may be a conflict in the testimony it is the province of the jury to weigh the testimony and ferret out the truth and where there is competent evidence upon which the jury could base their verdict it will not be disturbed on appeal.”
    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.