103 So. 3d 86 - Ingram v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2012
Citation profile
3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
November 2016
most recently cited
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Ganey v. North Carolina · 972 So. 2d 159 - Ex Parte Jenkins · 779 So. 2d 1225 - Ingram v. State · Ex Parte Apicella · 548 So. 2d 1062 - Cochran 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Whether [the petitioner] actually filed a second amended petition with the circuit court or whether he requested leave from the court to file the second amended petition is a distinction without a difference. In either scenario, the issue whether to permit a second amended petition would have been properly placed before the circuit court. See, e.g., Broadnax v. State, 987 So.2d 631 (Ala.Crim.App.2007) (reversing circuit court’s denial of motion for leave to file second amended petition even though no second amended petition had been filed).””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Jones v. State · Pickett 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.