Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 698 P2D 942 - Tibbetts v. State

Tibbetts v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1985

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
2
states following
September 2013
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently September 2013

1 federal appellate · 19 state decisions

901985199020002010decided

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 Allison v. State · 79 Okla. Crim. 124 - Hamilton v. State · 63 Okla. Crim. 418 - Scrivener v. State · Manuel v. State · 65 Okla. Crim. 201 - Carr 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “the general parameters of the voir dire examination should have elicited a response”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “since defense counsel was not informed of the [juror's] relationship after he had manifested his interest therein by specific interrogatories incorporated into a more general examination ... he was effectively deprived of an opportunity to fully explore this area as a potential foundation for a challenge for cause. Additionally, the defendant was at the very least deprived of knowledge upon which he could intelligently exercise a peremptory challenge, for we do not doubt that any defense attorney would so challenge a prospective juror with such a kinship to an employee of his adversary when, as here, circumstances otherwise permat.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “"The defendant challenged [a] juror for cause, was overruled, and used his last peremptory challenge to excuse her. The next juror drawn was a vehicle maintenance man for the City of Lawton who was acquainted with the policemen involved in the case. The appellant's claim is without merit as to the improper seating of the juror who was a maintenance man for the Lawton Police. He was adequately examined throughout his voir dire, and the defense counsel was satisfied with him on the jury, for she failed to challenge him for cause; in fact, defense counsel 'passed him for cause."" (Emphasis added.)”
    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.