Odom v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1950
Citation profile
50 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently March 1984 · most notably Stokley v. State (1950), 39 Ala. App. 257 - Ray v. State (1957)
50 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 Hopt v. People of the Territory of Utah · Edwards v. State · Phillips v. State · Wilson v. State · Johnson 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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Charge 12 was refused without error. While it had the approval of earlier cases, it has been uniformly condemned in more recent decisions as failing ‘to predicate the acquittal upon a consideration of the evidence in the case (Davis v. State, supra [ 188 Ala. 59 , 66 So. 67 ]), and for the use of the expression “probability of defendant’s innocence” (Edwards v. State, 205 Ala. 160 , 87 So. 179 ).’ Whittle v. State, 213 Ala. 301, 304 , 104 So. 668, 670 ; McDowell v. State, 238 Ala. 101, 106 , 189 So. 183 ; Campbell v. State, 182 Ala. 18, 34 , 62 So. 57 ; Stovall v. State, 34 Ala.App. 610 , 42 So.2d 636 ; Kelley v. State, 32 Ala.App. 408 , 26 So.2d 633 ; Krasner v. State, 32 Ala.App. 420 , 26 So.2d 519 ; Witt v. State, 27 Ala.App. 409 , 174 So. 794 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Fitch v. State“. . We cannot refrain, however, from mentioning that the trial judge could well have given some of the charges rather than risk a reversal. We particularly take notice of Charge 6, which has had the uniform approval of our appellate courts and was last approved in Richardson v. State, 33 Ala.App. 40 , 29 So.2d 883 (2), certiorari denied, 249 Ala. 93 , 29 So.2d 884 , and error there pronounced for its refusal by the learned trial judge who presided in the instant case. We think, however, that Charge 6 was likewise substantially and fairly covered and do not think there was error to reverse in its refusal.””
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.