Rainey v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1944
Citation profile
81 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 81 later decisions — most recently June 1983 · most notably Hamilton v. Browning (1952), Kozlowski v. State (1946)
81 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 Godfrey v. Vinson · Indemnity Ins. Co. of North America v. Turnipseed · Mobile Pure Milk Co. v. Coleman · New River Coal Co. v. Files · 24 Ala. App. 249 - Reynolds 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 81 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We note that in the opinion of the Court of Appeals reference is made to the fact that in wantonness the accused must have actual knowledge that another occupies a position of peril. True, it is sometimes so stated as in the cases they cite, where other aspects of wantonness were not involved. Copeland v. Cent[ral] of G[eorgi]a Ry. Co., 213 Ala. 620 , 105 So. 809 , and in Pratt v. State, 27 Ala. App. 301 , 171 So. 393 . But it is also as well settled that it is culpable wantonness when the accused has knowledge that some person (any person) is likely to be in a position of danger and with conscious disregard of such known danger, he recklessly proceeds on a dangerous course which causes the disaster, though he may not know whether any person is actually in danger. Godfrey v. Vinson, 215 Ala. 166 (6), 110 So. 13 ; 15 Ala[bama] Dig[est] Negligence, 11, p[age] 301.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““If the evidence is not set out in the opinion of the Court of Appeals its finding as to what the evidence shows is conclusive on our review, whether or not the question relates to the affirmative charge (Mobile Pure Milk Co. v. Coleman, 230 Ala. 432 , 161 So. 829 ); but whether such finding justifies the affirmative charge as a matter of law is reviewable. If the evidence is set out in the opinion, we will review its sufficiency to justify the affirmative charge, though the Court of Appeals may have made a finding of facts from that evidence.” Rainey v. State, 245 Ala. 458, 460 , 17 So.2d 687, 688 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“an act greatly dangerous to the lives of others, whereby death ensues.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ex Parte Edwards
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.