King v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 state decisions

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

1. ““. . . In the second paragraph of the Syllabus of Zeigler v. State, 76 Okl. Cr. 34, 133 P.2d 912 , this court held: ‘The introduction of evidence in a criminal case is subject to such restrictions or limitations as the trial court in its discretion may decide.’ “Certainly, in a Robbery with Firearms case, where a material element of the crime is force or fear, the shooting of the victim is significantly material in proving that element of the crime, and it is not inadmissible merely because it may prove the defendant guilty of another crime. See Parnell v. State, Okl.Cr., 389 P.2d 370 , and Cornelius v. State, Okl.Cr., 438 P.2d 295 . . . .””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Schneider v. State · Harris v. State

2. ““* * * Moreover, since the record does not reflect either the affidavit for the search warrant, or the search warrant itself, there is nothing preserved for review on appeal. In the first paragraph of the Syllabus of Winer v. State, 36 Okl. Cr. 316, 253 P. 1025 , this Court held: “ ‘Error is not presumed, but must be made to affirmatively appear in order to avail a defendant. Where a defendant contends that a search warrant is invalid, the burden is on him to establish the facts which render it invalid.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. England v. State