Workman v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently August 2011
2 federal appellate · 16 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 Strickland v. Washington · Barefoot v. Estelle · Jurek v. Texas · Swansboro Country, Inc. v. Lumberman's Mortgage Co. · Union Labor Life Insurance v. Pireno
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Appellant ... complains that § 701.7(C) lacks any mens rea. We ... must disagree. The intent for § 701.7(C) is found in 21 O.S. § 843 under the general intent of ‘willfully or ‘maliciously’. See Drew v. State, 771 P.2d 224, 228 , (Okl.Cr.1989). This assignment of error lacks merit.” Workman v. State, 1991 OK CR 125, ¶ 22 , 824 P.2d 378, 383 (Judges Brett and Parks dissented on other grounds) (emphasis added).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Fairchild v. State“no person shall be disqualified as a juror by reason of having formed or expressed an opinion upon the matter or cause to be submitted to such jury, founded upon ... statements in public journals... provided it appears to the court, upon his declaration ... that he can and will... act impartially and fairly upon the matters to be submitted to him.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“afraid it would take much more to convince me that [Workman is] innocent.”
1 later decision 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.