Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 483 P2D 1162 - Fischer v. State

Fischer v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1971

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
October 1995
most recently cited

6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently October 1995

6 state decisions

30197119801990decided

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 Coleman v. Alabama · Williams v. State · Shirey v. State · Harrison v. State · McCraw 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"`"An objection to evidence obtained by illegal search and seizure must be interposed at first opportunity and should be made either at beginning of trial by motion to suppress evidence or in course of examination as soon as it becomes apparent that state will rely thereon, and defendant failing to make timely objection waives right to be heard on such questions." (Emphasis ours.)'"”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““We do not deem it appropriate to discuss in this opinion the question as to whether the defendant was, in fact, arrested. The record does not reveal that the defendant raised the question of illegal arrest until the middle of the trial. In Harrison v. State, Okl.Cr., 461 P.2d 1007 , we stated: ‘In accordance with the authority above set forth, we are of the opinion that the arrest was lawful; however, even had the arrest been illegal, the failure of the defendant to raise this issue prior to entering a plea to the charge on its merits and proceeding to trial, constituted a waiver and therefore may not be urged as a grounds for reversal. This Court has repeatedly held that: “The fact that an original arrest may have been unlawful does not affect the jurisdiction of the court, nor is it a ground for quashing the information. And it does not preclude trial of the accused for the offense.” ’ ””
    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.