21 So. 3d 770 - Ex Parte Carruth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[F]or ... 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)....””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Martin · 56 So. 3d 726 - State v. Martin

2. ““The State argues that the circuit court erred in granting the appellee permission to file an out-of-time petition for a writ of certiorari in the Alabama Supreme Court. For the reasons set forth herein, we agree. “With regard to petitions for writs of certiorari, Rule 39(a), Ala. R.App. P., provides, in pertinent part: “ ‘Certiorari review is not a matter of right, but of judicial discretion. A petition for a writ of certiorari will be granted only when there are special and important reasons for the issuance of the writ.’ “(Emphasis added.) The ‘Court Comment to Amendment to Rule 39 Effective May 19, 2000, as to death-penalty cases and August 1, 2000, as to all other cases’ states, in pertinent part: “ ‘The amendment changes the standard for certiorari review of criminal cases in which the death penalty is imposed. For provisions relating to death-penalty cases, see subsection (a)(2)(A)-(E). The amendment removes the provision in the former Rule 39(e) that provided that a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court in a case in which the death penalty was imposed would be granted as a matter of right. With this amendment, review of death-penalty cases will be at the discretion of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court retains the authority to notice any plain error or defect in the proceedings under review in those cases. In a death-penalty case, the petitioner must concisely state the grounds when review is sought based on a failure to recognize as prejudicial any”

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

3. ““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
   e.g. State v. Martin