McPhearson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1960
Citation profile
40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently March 1993 · most notably White v. State (1975), 49 Ala. App. 233 - Thigpen v. State (1972)
40 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 Nichols v. State · Vernon v. State · Burns v. State · Rose v. Magro · Alabama Clay Products Co. v. Mathews
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"We have said that it is not reversible error for the court to refuse an abstract charge, nor will the giving of an abstract charge which asserts a correct legal proposition operate a reversal unless it appears that on account of the circumstances of the case and the character of the charge given it was calculated to prejudice." McPhearson v. State, 271 Ala. 533, 540 , 125 So.2d 709 (1961).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““Perhaps we should observe that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing the appellant’s request to examine each juror individually after the court had qualified the jury. The court advised the appellant that he could examine the jury as a whole and this procedure was pursued. Burns v. State, 226 Ala. 117 , 145 So. 436 . See Rose v. Magro, 220 Ala. 120 , 124 So. 296 ; Alabama Clay Products Co. v. Mathews, 220 Ala. 549 , 126 So. 869 .””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““No confession from the defendant was introduced in evidence. The defendant at all times professed his innocence. His testimony, as well as the statements made by him which were introduced by the State, show that he claimed the shooting was an accident. “The admissibility of confessions and in-culpatory admissions are generally determined under the same principles. But there is a broad distinction between admissions of inculpatory facts and confessions of guilt. When a person only admits certain facts from which the jury may or may not infer guilt, it is no confession. We may use the word confession for admission, but to sum up mere incul-patory admissions and designate them a confession implies they amount to a confession of guilt.” (Emphasis added.)”
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.