Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 206 Ark. 998 - McAlister v. State

McAlister v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1944

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
1
states following
October 2018
most recently cited

28 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently October 2018 · most notably Echols v. State (1996), Rogers v. State (1974)

28 state decisions

8019441950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Weinberg v. Pavitt · Western Coal & Mining Co. v. Kranc · Schafer v. Thurston Manufacturing Co. · Brewer v. State · Adams v. Fisher

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

  1. ““Although it may be assumed that the trial judge did not intend that his remarks should in any way prejudice the rights of appellant, or influence the jury, still his choice of words was unfortunate. The words to grant your motion ‘would just be silly’ doubtless was construed by the jury to mean that the motion itself was silly, and they could have gathered the impression that the court was intentionally belittling it, and holding counsel up to ridicule for having made it. Viewed in this light, the court’s remarks could have been construed as a reflection upon counsel’s knowledge and skill as a lawyer, and, perhaps,^ even as a suggestion that counsel was guilty of improper conduct. Not only this, but when counsel objected to the remarks of the court, which he unquestionably had a right to do, he was informed that the court would not ‘put up with any more of this foolishness.’ This constituted an unmerited reprimand and prejudicial error calling for reversal. In the case of Adams v. Fisher, 83 Neb. 686 , 120 N. W. 194 , it was held that it is prejudicial error for the court to reprimand counsel for interposing a proper objection.””
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “I am not going to put up with any more of this foolishness,”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “To grant your motion would be just silly,”
    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.