Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 75 Okla. Crim. 192 - Fitzgerald v. State

75 Okla. Crim. 192 - Fitzgerald v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1942

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
April 1962
most recently cited

4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently April 1962

4 state decisions

20194219501960decided

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 25 Okla. Crim. 284 - Williams v. State · 4 Okla. Crim. 309 - Steen v. State · 61 Okla. Crim. 12 - Hull v. State · 8 Okla. Crim. 496 - Moore v. State · 57 Okla. Crim. 442 - Tarbutton 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Matson, Presiding Judge, in the opinion, reviewing decisions of this court concludes as follows: ‘Thus it will be seen that evidence of the general reputation of the premises as a place where liquors are sold is ordinarily not admissible in a prosecution for the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor with intent to sell. In this jurisdiction the only exception to such general rule is as stated above, and evidently in this case the prosecuting officers believed they were complying with the premise that the place must be a place of public resort by merely proving the general reputation of the place as one of public resort. Such was not the holding in the Ward case. Before evidence of general reputation of the premises will be held to be admissible in prosecutions of this kind there must be specific evidence that the place itself was a place of public resort, not simply that it bore such reputation.’ ””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““Proof that defendant’s home had the general reputation of being a place of public resort is not a sufficient predicate to authorize the admission of evidence of the general reputation of such place as a place where intoxicating liquor is kept for sale.””
    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.