Elliott v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently April 2024
2 federal appellate · 8 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Jackson v. Denno · North Carolina v. Butler · 1 Okla. Crim. 358 - Price v. State · Kelsey 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'[W]hen the court allows the jury to separate and counsel for both sides is present, their failure to object waives any potential error caused by the separation.'”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“Title 22 O.S.1981, § 857 has been construed as a requirement that the jury not be allowed to “separate.” Hayes v. State, 397 P.2d 524, 527 (Okl.Cr.1964). If the jury has been sent to deliberate and is then allowed to separate and commingle with people outside their group, prejudice to the defendant is presumed. Id.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bayliss 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.