Hunsucker v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently December 2019
7 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 Samples v. State · Brinlee v. State · Simmons v. State · Hamel v. State · Hanlon 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * In this proposition defendant also depends upon the provisions of 22 O.S. § 742, which requires corroboration of the testimony of an accomplice. In this case however, defendant was not an accomplice of the three boys who stole the pipe. We held in Samples v. State, Okl.Cr., 337 P.2d 756 (1959): ‘A person who steals property is not an “accomplice” of the one who receives the property, knowing it to be stolen, and where there is no pre-ar-ranged plan for one to steal property and deliver the same to another, the one who receives it is not an accomplice of the one who commits the theft.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Frew v. State“the consideration referred to in the statute may be of many different types.”
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.