Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 486 P2D 743 - Hawkins v. State

Hawkins v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1971

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
2
states following
December 1991
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently December 1991

2 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

40197119801990decided

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 Roberts v. LaVallee

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. ““It is well settled that a statute requiring the payment of certain fees for a transcript of a preliminary hearing in a criminal case, as applied to deny a free transcript to an indigent, violates the equal protection clause of the Federal Constitution. See Waters v. State, Okl.Cr., 454 P.2d 325 and Roberts v. LaVallee, 389 U.S. 40 , 88 S.Ct. 194 , 19 L. Ed.2d 41 ,” «* * * “The purpose of the rule enunciated in Waters v. State and Roberts v. LaVallee, supra, was to accord an indigent the same right to a transcript of the testimony taken at preliminary examination as that accorded to persons able to pay for such transcript, in order that they might properly prepare for trial. When the defendant was provided with a transcript in the instant case, a sufficient length of time prior to trial in order to prepare his defense, the object of the rule was fulfilled. Should counsel for defendant in any future case make a timely request for the transcript of the preliminary examination at public expense in order to prepare for trial, and be denied the same by the trial judge, he should forthwith seek a Writ of Mandamus in this Court prior to trial, directing the preparation of the same.” (Emphasis added.)”
    2 later decisions 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.