Bernhardt v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently March 2026
5 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 64 Okla. Crim. 382 - Luellen v. State · 96 Okla. Crim. 209 - Crossett v. State · 97 Okla. Crim. 229 - Williams v. State · Nelson v. State · Jackson 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The rational behind this rule is simple: The terms, particularly the term ‘under the influence,’ are not of common understanding or knowledge. 1 As this Court explained in Luellen [v. State, 64 Okl.Cr. 382 , 81 P.2d 323 (1983)], the legal standard, ‘under the influence’ is the very gist of the crime. Without it being defined one juror may construe it to mean that a party must be ‘drunk’, another that he be ‘completely out’ and devoid of reason, another may construe it to mean that if it is proven that he has taken one drink that he is therefore ‘under the influence’ of intoxicating liquor.” Bernhardt, supra, at 833 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Slusher 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.