State v. Keith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 state decisions

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

1. ““In Smith v. State, 435 So.2d 158 (Ala.Crim.App.1983), this Court reversed Smith’s conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol because the information charging Smith with driving under the influence of alcohol was ‘void.’ In reaching this conclusion, this Court found: “ ‘The information charged that the defendant “did commit the offense of Driving Under the Influence in violation of Section 32-5A-191 of the Code of Alabama.” The information is fatally defective because it does not specify whether the defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol (Section 32-5A-191(a)(2)[) ], under the influence of a controlled substance (Section 32 — 5A—191 (a)(3)[)), or under the combined influence of alcohol and a controlled substance (Section 32-5A-191(a)(4)[) ]. The information did not allege a criminal offense in that it failed to describe any offense condemned by Section 32-5A-191.’ “435 So.2d at 158. “This Court, in Bishop v. State, 555 So.2d 317, 318 (Ala.Crim.App.1989), reversed a conviction for driving under the influence for ‘being in actual physical control of a vehicle while there was .10% or more by weight of alcohol in [Bishop’s] blood’ and held that an information charging Bishop with driving under the influence was void because ‘the information did not charge this offense, or any other offense.’ (Emphasis in original.) Specifically, this Court found that ‘[t]he information charged that Bishop “did commit the offense of [driving under the influence] in violati”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Thomas

2. ““the UTTC under which Keith was charged provided that Keith “ ‘[d]id unlawfully operate a motor vehicle or other vehicle at or near CR-39 within the County of Autauga at or near CR-39 ALT in violation of Section 32-5A-191(A)l/2 (Code of Alabama, 1975) duly adopted and in force at the time the offense was committed more particularly described as: “ ‘Did drive or be in actual physical control of a vehicle while there was 0.08% or more by weight of alcohol in his/her blood and/or while under the influence of alcohol.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Thomas