Maxey v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 4 state decisions

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. ““Secondly, the defendant asserts that it was error for the trial court to consider the pre-sentence investigation which reflected a former conviction in setting punishment, when the jury was unable to do so. Defendant erroneously argues that the rendering of punishment by the trial court should be analogous to the imposition of punishment by the jury. This is not true. In this situation, 22 O.S.1971, § 973, is applicable, and states: ‘After a plea or verdict of guilty in a case where the extent of the punishment is left with the court, the court, upon the suggestion of either party that there are circumstances which may be properly taken into view, either in aggravation or mitigation of the punishment, may in its discretion hear the same summarily at a specified time and upon such notice to the adverse party as it may direct.’ ” 526 P.2d at 955 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Maxey v. Benton

2. ““The rule is well settled that it is the duty of defendant to use all reasonable diligence in order to secure the attendance of' witnesses in his behalf, and it must be made to appear from the application of continuance that he has used due diligence in procuring the attendance of his witnesses, and the application must set out facts fully which constitute due diligence.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Miles v. State