MUSONDA v. STATE’s Empirical Analysis
2019
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
October 2021
most recently cited
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · 2006 OK CR 46 - Stouffer v. State · Nauni v. State · Fairchild v. State · 2010 OK CR 7 - Logsdon 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To be entitled to relief under the plain error doctrine, [Appellant] must show the existence of an actual error (i.e., deviation from a legal rule), that is plain or obvious, and that affects his substantial rights, meaning the error affected the outcome of the proceeding.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. SHAW v. STATE“If these elements are met, this Court will correct plain error only if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the judicial proceedings or otherwise represents a miscarriage of justice.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. SHAW 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.