Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 257 Ala. 205 - Drake v. State

Drake v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1952

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
1
states following
June 2005
most recently cited

25 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently June 2005 · most notably Dockery v. State (1959), 940 So. 2d 331 - Irvin v. State (2005)

25 state decisions

80195219601970198019902000decided

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 Parsons v. State · Reedy v. State · Logan v. State · Stephens v. State · Wells v. Wells

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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““After Allen testified with respect to the confession, the solicitor asked if the defendant .told him anything else, evidently pursuing the inquiry with respect to the confession. The irrelevant response by the witness that the .defendant said he had served a term in the federal penitentiary was immediately excluded by the court, the court stating: T will exclude that. This has got nothing to do with the facts in this case.’ Counsel for defendant moved for a mistrial, but this motion was overruled. Much stress is laid on this ruling as error to reverse, but we have concluded, after a consideration of all the facts, that the prompt ruling of the court in peremptorily and explicitly excluding the statement of the witness fully eradicated whatever prejudice might have attended its making. Stephens v. State, 252 Ala. 183 , 40 So.2d 90 . It is also to be borne in mind that after the defendant had taken the stand, it would have been proper for the State to have • cross-examined him with reference to the verity of such a fact, although it would not have been competent at the time the witness volunteered the statement.””
    3 later decisions 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.