Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 510 P2D 978 - Sam v. State

Sam v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1973

Citation profile

31
cited by 31 later decisions
3
states following
December 2015
most recently cited

31 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently December 2015 · most notably Bryan v. State (1997), Driskell v. State (1983)

31 state decisions

20019731980199020002010decided

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 Irvin v. Dowd · Conway v. Wilson · Spencer v. Texas · Ivy v. State · 9 Okla. Crim. 382 - Brown 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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““(a) No judge of any court shall sit in any cause or proceeding in which he may be interested, . . or in which he has been of counsel for either side, or in which is called in question the validity of any judgment or proceeding in which he was of counsel or interested, without the consent of the parties to said action entered of record.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"In the instant case, the only deviation from the statute was that the ballots were stirred rather than `shaken.' The end result is the same. The ballots were mixed before the names were drawn, thereby complying with the purpose of the statute... ."”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “. .To hold that the mere existence of any preconceived notion as to the guilt or innocence of an accused, without more, is sufficient to rebut the presumption of a prospective juror’s impartiality would be to establish an impossible standard. It is sufficient if the juror can lay aside his impression or opinion and render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court. . . .” (Citations omitted)”
    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.