Copeland v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1949
Citation profile
18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently January 1993
18 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 Birmingham Ry. Light & Power Co. v. Moore · City of Dothan v. Hardy · Mobile City Lines, Inc. v. Alexander · Ewart v. Cunningham · Harris 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"So, if there be no previous agreement that the average estimate to be arrived at shall be binding and this plan of deliberating is adopted merely for the purpose of achieving a working basis, which the jurors are free to accept or reject as they see fit, a verdict to which the jurors subsequently agree is not regarded as a quotient one but is binding whether it is for a sum which is the average of the amounts fixed or for some other amount. Harris v. State , 241 Ala. 240 , 2 So.2d 431 ; City of Dothan v. Hardy , 237 Ala. 603 , 188 So. 264 , 268 , 122 A.L.R. 637 ; Ewart v. Cunningham , [ 219 Ala. 399 , 122 So. 359 ,] supra." Copeland , supra.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"The rule is, however, that in order to render a verdict objectionable and subject to vacation on the ground that it was a quotient verdict, it devolves upon the assailant of the verdict to show by competent evidence that the jury adopted this plan in arriving at a verdict, and that they agreed in advance to be bound by the result of such proceeding. The vitiating fact is the agreement in advance to abide by the result. Birmingham R., Light Power Co. v. Moore , 148 Ala. 115 , 42 So. 1024 ; Bank of Tallassee v. Elmore Fertilizer Co. , 16 Ala. App. 465 , 78 So. 648 ; Henderson Land Lumber Co. v. Brown , 16 Ala. App. 453 , 78 So. 716 ."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Confining consideration to specific objections made, we will notice in passing that under the issues presented, testimony indicating prior difficulties between the parties and prior assaults on the deceased by the defendant and the nature and gravity thereof was material evidence in the case. Bryant v. State, ante [252 Ala.], p. 153, 39 So.2d 657 (4); Buffalow v. State, 219 Ala. 407 , 122 So. 633 .””
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.