22 Ala. App. 191 - Martin v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1927
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently May 2002
8 state decisions
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 Morrison v. Formby · Martin v. State · Garlick v. Dunn · Van Dyke v. State · Peeples v. State
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * Terms of courts are regular, adjourned, and special. In the absence of section 10285 [Code 1940, T. 13, § 26], this court would be without authority to call a special term, which it has done in this case, limited to a specific purpose; i. e., for the determination of such causes specified. It is a term separate and distinct from the regular term, which ended by operation of law June 30th. Ex parte Daly, 66 Fla. 345 , 63 So. 834 ; Kingsley v. Bagby, 2 Kan. App. 23 , 41 P. 991 ; State v. Boucher, 8 N.D. 277 , 78 N.W. 988 ; Peeples v. State, 46 Fla. 101 , 35 So. 223 , 4 Ann.Cas. 870. Adjourned terms, if called, must be under and by virtue of section 10279 [Code 1940, T. 13, § 20], and when so called have the effect of continuing the regular term. “This court is without jurisdiction to further consider the case of Martin v. State, and decline to consider the petition to reinstate the cause to the rehearing docket.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““ . . . .we are driven to the; conclusion that this court has lost control of this judgment; otherwise every judgment in every case rendered at the October term, 1926-27, of this court, would still be in the breast of the court and subject to change — a condition not to be contemplated.” ( 22 Ala.App. at page 193 , 113 So. at page 453 )”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hamm v. Harrigan
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.