Parsons v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1948
Citation profile
157 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 157 later decisions — most recently May 2009 · most notably Stokley v. State (1950), Cobern v. State (1962)
157 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 William Marbury v. James Madison · Palko v. State of Connecticut · Carter v. Carter Coal Co. · Maryland Casualty Co. v. United States · Scher v. United States
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 157 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"But the rule is that if several crimes in fact constitute one criminal transaction, evidence of all such crimes may be given as part of the res gestae of the offense with which defendant is charged. — Allison v. State , 1 Ala. App. 206 , 55 So. 453 ; Askew v. State , 6 Ala. App. 41 , 60 So. 455 ; Ingram v. State , 39 Ala. 247 , 84 Am.Dec. 782."”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“"[I]f the witness testifies to facts within his knowledge and memory, although refreshed by the memorandum, the memorandum is not admissible. It is admissible when after consulting it, she still does not remember the fact, but that she wrote the memorandum at the time of the occurrence, and knew it was correct when she wrote it."”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““We think the appropriate and dignified approach was as conducted in this case, that is, to move the court to request the Attorney General of the United States to make provision for the production of the information. If he declines to do so on request, the trial court has done its duty so far under the Constitution to provide due process. Then if defendant wishes to pursue the matter further, the way is open as pointed out in the opinion of the United States Attorney General, quoted supra, by undertaking to secure the deposition of the Attorney General, or to require him to release it as evidence. “We think the court should have granted the timely motion to request the Attorney General of the United States to release the evidence, and upon declining to-grant the motion, the trial should have been continued on further motion, to give an opportunity to secure the evidence by deposition or otherwise in pursuit of due diligence.””
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.