Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 792 P2D 76 - Davis v. State

Davis v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1990

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
2
states following
September 2014
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently September 2014

1 federal appellate · 11 state decisions

70199020002010decided

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 Katz v. United States · Chimel v. California · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Beck v. State of Ohio · United States v. Ross

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

  1. ““Appellant requested the rule after the State had called the second of its three witnesses. The trial court denied the request telling Appellant it was too late. In Kelsey v. State, 744 P.2d 190, 193 (Okla.Cr.1987), the defense did not request the rule of sequestration until the fourth of six state witnesses. This Court held that the better. practice would have been for the trial court to either invoke the rule upon request or grant appropriate exceptions consistent with the exercise of sound discretion. However, as the request of defense counsel was not timely and no showing of prejudice- was made, we refused to find reversible error. The rationale of Kelsey is applicable to the present case. It would have been better for the trial court to either invoke the rule of sequestration or grant an appropriate exception. However, in light of defense counsel’s failure to make a timely request and in the absence of any showing of prejudice by Appellant, we cannot say that reversible error occurred.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “If at the time of arrest the facts and circumstances within the arresting officer's knowledge and of which he had reasonable trustworthy information were sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that an offense had been or was being committed, probable cause is established and the arrest is lawful.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “A police officer may make a warrantless arrest of a person if the officer has probable cause to believe that the arrestee has committed a felony.”
    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.