Pate v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2012
Citation profile
1 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Kirby v. State · 537 So. 2d 59 - Tucker v. State · John Charles Yocum v. State of Alabama. · 944 So. 2d 162 - Ferrell v. State · 117 So. 3d 933 - Ex Parte T.D.M., 1091645 (Ala. 10-28-2011)
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.
““Because the record supports Pate’s claim that his request for sentence modification was made in a separate motion, the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in concluding that the claim was not proper for appellate review. Accordingly, we reverse its judgment to the extent it held that the trial court’s ruling on Pate’s request for sentence reconsideration was not properly before it, and we remand the case for the Court of Criminal Appeals to review the circuit court’s denial of Pate’s motion for sentence modification.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Pate 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.