Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 752 P2D 814 - Van White v. State

Van White v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
3
states following
March 2009
most recently cited

22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently March 2009

22 state decisions

150198819902000decided

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 Strickland v. Washington · United States v. Bagley · Witherspoon v. Illinois · Wainwright v. Witt · Ake v. Oklahoma

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

  1. ““[accordingly, we hold that under Kelly, supra, the failure of the court reporter to transcribe voir dire as requested by counsel for appellant in his designation of record, requires that appellant’s judgment and sentence for first degree murder on Count I must be reversed and remanded for a new trial. In so holding, we specifically adopt Judge Brett’s special concurrence in Kelly, supra, requiring that in order to effectuate this Court’s mandatory sentence review obligation under 21 O.S.Supp.1985, § 701.13(C)(1), a complete stenographic record shall be taken in all capital proceedings.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Because the bench conferences were held outside the hearing of the jury, we are not inclined to include them in a blanket rule which would require automatic reversal as is the case with other portions of the trial such as jury selection. Lack of record of bench conferences does not hinder our ability to conduct the mandatory sentence review required under the Oklahoma Statutes. Conferences at the bench, while potentially effecting (sic) the actual evidence presented or the manner in which the evidence is presented, do not in and of themselves influence our determination of "whether the sentence of death was imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor." Section 7OL13(C)(1). Problems involving the rulings resulting from the conferences are easily appealed in their own right.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “whether or not the jury was improperly prejudiced to impose a sentence of death during voir dire.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.