Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 246 Ala. 545 - Scott v. State

Scott v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1945

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
1
states following
June 1992
most recently cited

12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently June 1992

12 state decisions

80194519501960197019801990decided

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 Lambert v. State · Borland v. Mayo · Floyd v. State · Riley v. State · Nicholson 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““The time and manner of introducing and closing the evidence in a suit are necessarily within the judicial discretion of the presiding judge. So where a witness was allowed to be examined in a suit by a defendant after the plaintiff had closed his rebutting testimony, on the ground (as expressed by the court) that new facts had been disclosed, such decision held not revisable on error. Hutchins v. Childress & Baker, 4 Stew. & Port. 34; Gayle v. Bishop, 14 Ala. 552 . The court may in its discretion decline to permit the defendant to introduce evidence after the plaintiff has closed his evidence in rebuttal. Borland v. Mayo, 8 Ala. 104 .””
    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.