21 Ala. App. 554 - Gunter v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The motion to quash the indictment on the grounds that the grand jury by which said indictment was found did not have sufficient legal evidence before it to find said indictment, or did not have before it any legal evidence tending to establish the corpus delicti of the offense charged, was wholly without merit, and the court properly so held. It affirmatively appears that witnesses appeared before the grand jury and gave evidence in this case; the injured party and another so testified; and the recognized rule is: “ ‘When it appears witnesses were examined by the grand jury, or the grand jury had before them legal documentary evidence, no inquiry into the sufficiency of the evidence is indulged.’ Sparrenberger v. State, 53 Ala. 481 , 25 Am. Rep. 643 ; Washington v. State, 63 Ala. 192 ; Agee v. State, 117 Ala. 169 , 23 So. 486 ; McLeod et al. v. State, 8 Ala. App. 329 , 62 So. 991 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 24 Ala. App. 512 - Howard v. State