Luker v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently October 2022 · most notably State v. Murphy (1978), Foster v. State (1986)
2 federal appellate · 30 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 Logan v. State · Neal v. State · 77 Okla. Crim. 73 - Bean v. State · Gaddis v. State · Fish 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In all cases of a verdict of conviction for any offense against any of the laws of the State of Oklahoma, the jury may, and shall upon the request of the defendant assess and declare the punishment in their verdict within the limitations fixed by law, and the court shall render a judgment according to such verdict, except as hereinafter provided.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. LUNA v. STATE · LUNA v. STATE“You are instructed that the Statutes of the State of Oklahoma provide that every person who breaks and enters any building or any part of any building, room, booth, tent, railroad car, automobile, truck, trailer, vessel or other structure or erection, in which any property is kept, or breaks into or forcibly opens, any coin operated or vending machine or device, with intent to steal any property therein or to commit any felony, is guilty of Burglary in the Second Degree. The breaking and entering necessary to constitute burglary may be by any act of physical force, however slight, by which obstruction to entering is forcibly removed and the opening of a closed door in order to enter an automobile may constitute a breaking.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Finley v. State““. . . Where there is evidence, although entirely circumstantial, from which the jury may reasonably and logically find the defendant guilty, the weight, credibility and probative effect of such evidence is for the jury, and the Court of Criminal Appeals will not disturb the verdict for insufficiency of the evidence. See, Matthews v. State, Okl. Cr., 530 P.2d 1044 (1975), and Edwards v. State, Okl.Cr., 508 P.2d 699 (1973). . . ””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Agee 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.