Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 786 P2D 1255 - Pierce v. State

Pierce v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1990

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
2
states following
May 2018
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 25 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently May 2018 · most notably 2006 OK CR 19 - Hogan v. State (2006), Mayes v. State (1994)

5 federal appellate · 25 state decisions

190199020002010decided

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 · Lockett v. Ohio · Adman v. United States · Polyak v. Stack · Bruner 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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[w]e have often recognized the well established principal that a defendant may not complain of error which he has invited, and that reversal cannot be predicated on such error”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “whether counsel exercised the skill, judgment and diligence of a reasonably competent defense attorney in light of his overall performance.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “(1) they are generally made by experienced police officers, (2) they are voluntary statements; (3) they are wilfully jabbed rather than inadvertent; (4) they inject information concerning other crimes; (5) they are calculated to prejudice the defendant; and (6) they are prejudicial to the rights of the defendant on trial.”
    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.