69 Okla. Crim. 17 - Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Robbery is a wrongful taking of personal property in tbe possession of another, from bis person or immediate presence, and against bis will, accomplished by means of force or fear.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 96 Okla. Crim. 279 - Ex Parte Simmons · 71 Okla. Crim. 42 - Cannon v. State

2. ““* * * On or about the 15th day of January, 1939, in said county and state, the defendants, Flossie Cannon, colored, and Gladys Doe, whose more true and correct name is to affiant unknown, colored, then and there being, did'then and there wrongfully, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, while acting together by means of threats and violence toward the person of T. E. Morgan by the use of some dangerous and deadly weapon, the exact nature of which is unknown to affiant, and by pointing said weapon at the said T. E. Morgan thereby putting the said T. E. Morgan in fear of immediate personal injury to himself, take $26 in good and lawful money of the United States, the property of the said T. E. Morgan, from the person and' immediate presence of the said T. E. Morgan, and against his will, with the unlawful, wrongful and felonious intent then and there on the part of them, the said defendants, and each of them, to convert said property to' their own use and to’ deprive the owner permanently thereof, contrary to the form of the statute in such cases made and provided and against the peace and dignity of the state.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 71 Okla. Crim. 42 - Cannon v. State

3. ““This general statute defining robbery is the statute upon which all robbery cases are based. The statute under which the information in this case was filed is what is known as a. statute of classification, and not definition. It does not supersede the statute defining robbery, but it only increases the punishment. The essential elements of robbery are as defined by the original statute. Randall v. State, 33 Okla. Cr. 262 , 243 P. 983 ; Wells v. State, 34 Okla. Cr. 179 , 245 P. 1007 ; Wissinger v. State, 39 Okla. Cr. 324 , 264 P. 631 ; Kernell v. State, 53 Okla. Cr. 259 , 10 P. 2d 287 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 71 Okla. Crim. 42 - Cannon v. State