Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 508 P.2d 285 - Lauhoff v. State

Lauhoff v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1973

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
1
states following
March 2001
most recently cited

14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently March 2001

14 state decisions

1201973198019902000decided

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 Neal v. State · 92 Okla. Crim. 182 - Martin v. State · Ethridge v. State · Dorrough v. State · McDoulett 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““ . . . We have repeatedly held that where there is competent evidence reasonably tending to sustain the allegations of the charge, the trial court should not sustain a demurrer to the evidence. See Martin v. State, 92 Okl.Cr. 182 , 222 P.2d 534 (1950); Dorrough v. State, Okl.Cr., 452 P.2d 816 (1969) and McDoulett v. State, Okl.Cr., 486 P.2d 654 (1971).””
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““An examination of the record fails to disclose that the defendant challenged the panel as required by the provisions of 22 O.S. § 634, supra, and therefore this question is not properly before us on appeal . . . .””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““A challenge to the panel must be taken before a jury is sworn, and must be in writing, specifying plainly and distinctly the facts constituting the ground of challenge.” [Emphasis added]”
    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.