Fish v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently February 1992
17 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 Rhine v. State · 94 Okla. Crim. 261 - Brannon v. State · Catron v. City of Ponca City · 4 Okla. Crim. 143 - White v. State · 54 Okla. Crim. 34 - Yeargin 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘The test of the sufficiency of an information is whether it alleges every element of the offense intended to be charged, and sufficiently apprises defendant of what he must be prepared to meet and so defines and identifies the offense that if convicted or acquitted the accused will be able to defend himself against any subsequent prosecution fof the same offense.’ ””
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Smith v. State · Tate v. State“1. The title of the action, specifying the name of the court to which the indictment or information is presented, and the names of the parties. 2. A statement of the acts constituting the offense, in ordinary and concise language, and in such manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended. (emphasis added). § 402. Indictment or information must be certain and direct. The indictment or information must be direct and certain as it regards: 1. The party charged. 2. The offense charged. 3. The particular circumstances of the offense charged, when they are necessary to constitute a complete offense. (emphasis added). § 403. Designation of defendant by fictitious name. § 404. Single offense to be charged Different counts. § 405. Allegation of time. § 406. Misdescription of person injured or intended to be injured. § 407. Words, how construed. The words used in an indictment or information must be construed in their usual acceptation, in common language, except words and phrases defined by law, which are to be construed according to their legal meaning. § 408. Statute not strictly pursued. Words used in a statute to define a public offense, need not be strictly pursued in the indictment or information; but other words conveying the same meaning may be used. § 409. Indictment or information, when sufficient. The indictment or information is sufficient if it can be understood therefrom: ... 6. That the act or omission charged as the offense is clearly ”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Miller v. State · Lamb v. State“... is guilty of burglary in the first degree.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Worchester 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.