Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 21 SO3D 764 - State v. Carruth

State v. Carruth’s Empirical Analysis

2008

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
April 2016
most recently cited

5 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Penson v. Ohio · Douglas v. People of State of California · Evitts v. Lucey · Pennsylvania v. Finley · Ross v. Moffitt

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

  1. ““(b) Suspension of Rules. In the interest of expediting decision, or for other good cause shown, an appellate court may suspend the requirements or provisions of any of these rules in a particular case on application of a party or on its own motion and may order proceedings in accordance with its direction; provided, however, an appellate court may not extend the time for taking an appeal, as provided in Rule 4(a)(1); and the supreme court may not extend the time for filing a petition for certiorari to the courts of appeal as provided in Rule 39(b); provided, however, that the supreme comt may extend the time for filing a petition for certiorari in a criminal case in which the death penalty was imposed as punishment.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““On October 25, 2006, the appellee filed a Rule 32 petition, challenging his convictions and sentences. He also sought ‘an out-of-time appeal to the Alabama Supreme Court’ based on allegations that he did not appeal through no fault of his own, see Rule 32.1(f), Ala. R.Crim. P., and that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance because he did not petition the Alabama Supreme Court for certiorari review. (C.R. 5.) After the State responded, the circuit court entered an order in which it stated: “ ‘To the extent this court has jurisdiction, Petitioner, Michael David Car-ruth is granted permission to file an Out of Time Petition for Writ of Cer-tiorari to the Alabama Supreme Court. “ ‘All Rule 32 issues are reserved by this court and shall be addressed subsequent to ruling by the Supreme Court of Alabama on Petitioner, Michael David Carruth’s “Petition for Writ of Certiorari.” ’ “(C.R. 162.) This appeal by the State followed.””
    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.