Ray v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1952
Citation profile
24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently March 2017
24 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 Edwards v. State · Wilson v. State · Stokley v. State · Leith v. State · Spicer 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Voluntary drunkenness neither excuses nor palliates crime. But in murder cases evidence of drunkenness to such degree that the accused is incapable of rational action and hence incapable of forming a specific intent essential to a malicious killing may reduce the killing to manslaughter, or may negative the premeditation and deliberation essential to murder in the first degree, or reduce the crime to murder in the second degree. Ivory v. State , 237 Ala. 344 , 186 So. 460 ; King v. State , 90 Ala. 612 , 616 , 8 So. 856 ."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"In the case of Williams v. State, 255 Ala. 229 , 51 So.2d 250 , we held that it is not necessary to establish an improper or illicit relationship before such evidence is relevant. True, the facts of the Williams case are not identical with the facts in the instant case, but they are analogous. In Johnson v. State, 17 Ala. 618 , the State, to prove motive in the trial of a husband for the murder of his wife, was allowed to prove that the husband had asked a woman for permission to visit her daughter. See also Marler v. State, 68 Ala. 580 . In our opinion the evidence complained of was not lacking in probative force and the trial court did not err in overruling appellant's objections to it. See also Duncan v. State, 88 Ala. 31 , 7 So. 104 ; Johnson v. State, 94 Ala. 35 , 10 So. 667 ; Spicer v. State, 188 Ala. 9 , 65 So. 972 ; Davis v. State, 222 Ala. 285 , 131 So. 900 ; and 11 Ala.Dig., Homicide, Key No. 166(7)."”
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.