Clark v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 18 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““We now deal with the defendants’ final assignment of error which alleges the unconstitutionality of 21 O.S.Supp.1974, § 701.1 due to Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 , 92 S.Ct. 2726 , 33 L.Ed.2d 346 (1972). This issue was determined by this Court in Riggs v. Branch, Okl.Cr., 554 P.2d 823 (1976). We therein held that the United States Supreme Court’s decisions in Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280 , 96 S.Ct. 2978 , 49 L.Ed.2d 944 (1976) and Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 U.S. 325 , 96 S.Ct. 3001 , 49 L.Ed.2d 974 (1976), left unaffected the validity of the 1973 Oklahoma Statutes defining First Degree Murder. Our conclusion in Riggs, supra, was that the Supreme Court’s decisions prohibited only the imposition of the death penalty in those cases where the jury had no discretion in the rendering of that sentence. . . .””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Roberts v. State · Brown v. State

2. “... It is our intention to adopt the ‘res gestae’ interpretation in disposing of this assignment of error: if the homicide is committed during the one, continuous transaction, the acts are so closely connected as to be inseparable in terms of time, place and causal relation, and the actions tend to be explanatory and incidental to each other, the homicide has been committed during the felony in our statutory sense.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Irvin v. State · Perry v. State

3. ““ * * * It has been repeatedly held by this Court that if the jury, in consideration of all the facts and circumstances, can reasonably and satisfactorily infer the existence of the premeditated design, they will be warranted in so doing, Clouse v. State, Okl.Cr., 389 P.2d 1002 (1964). The facts in the principal case reveal that two hostages were taken in a violent bank robbery, blindfolded and taken into an isolated building, and each shot twice. It is our position this presents sufficient facts from which the jury could find premeditation, and we therefore rule this contention to be without merit.””

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