Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 599 F.2d 918 - Squyres v. Hilliary

Squyres v. Hilliary’s Empirical Analysis

599 F.2d 918 · 1979

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
September 1990
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently September 1990

6 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

50197919801990decided

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 United States v. Jamerson · United States v. Van Scoy · Evans v. Gaisford · Harrod v. Sanders · Horany v. Paris

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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The remarks of counsel during final argument are more fairly characterized as zealous advocacy than as prejudicial misconduct, and are not of the type, either standing alone or in conjunction with the complained-of evidence, that would require reversal. Cf. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Co. v. American Airlines, Inc., Okl., 408 P.2d 789 (1965) (counsel’s entire closing argument tended to submerge corporate identity of plaintiff by asking jurors to place themselves in plaintiff’s position, and warned jury away from deciding case of factual issues); Horany v. Paris, Okl., 369 P.2d 636 (1962) (counsel deliberately and repeatedly injected improper questions reflecting on character of witness); Harrod v. Sanders, 137 Okl. 231 , 278 P. 1102 (1929), overruled on other grounds, Wolff v. Oklahoma Ry. Co., 184 Okl. 374 , 87 P.2d 671 (1939) (counsel deliberately and repeatedly asked incompetent questions for purpose of intimating something that either was not true, or not capable of being proven if true). 599 F.2d at p. 923.”
    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.