24 Ala. App. 590 - Weems v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1932
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently September 1987
10 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 19 Ala. App. 311 - Arthur v. State · 19 Ala. App. 642 - Pate v. State · Allen v. State · Whetstone v. State · Scott v. Parker
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is elementary that no jury or other tribunal can pronounce guilt upon an accused for an offense with which he is not charged. And in the case at bar, in the absence of such formal accusation, the court and jury were no more vested with legal authority to convict and pronounce judgment on this appellant under this indictment, for grand larceny, than they would have been for murder or some other offense entirely foreign to the accusation comprehended in the indictment upon which this case was tried. Arthur v. State, 19 Ala.App. 311 , 97 So. 158 , 7th Hd. note; Pate v. State, 19 Ala.App. 642 , 99 So. 833 , 2d Hd. note; Scott v. Parker, 216 Ala. 321, 325 , 113 So. 495 .””
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.