May v. Lingo’s Empirical Analysis
1964
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently August 2004 · most notably 368 So. 2d 581 - Hancock v. State (1979), Kelley v. Lingo (1966)
2 federal appellate · 22 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 Crawford v. State · 38 Ala. App. 64 - Wright v. State · Wright v. State · Fidelity-Phenix Fire Ins. Co. of New York v. Murphy · Fox v. Scheidt
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The specific applicable provision of the Alabama Rules of the Road Act in the case at bar is § 32-5A-195 (j), which provides that the Director of Public Safety, "` shall forthwith revoke the license of any driver upon receiving a record of such driver's conviction of any of the following offenses: (3) Upon a second or subsequent conviction within a five-year period, of driving or being in actual physical control of any vehicle while under the influence of alcohol . . . to a degree which renders him incapable of safely driving. . . .' (Emphasis supplied [in Mechur ].) "Alabama case law is commensurate with § 32-5A-195 in holding that the director's duty is mandatory and that in cases of mandatory revocation no administrative hearing or judicial appeal is afforded, but rather a writ of mandamus is the only available remedy."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"When a person is convicted of driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated and such conviction becomes final, it is the mandatory duty of the Director of Public Safety to forthwith revoke his driver's license. . . . No discretion on the part of the Director of Public Safety is involved. His action is purely administrative so far as mandatory revocations are concerned. . . . Anything said to the contrary . . . is disapproved." (Emphasis supplied.)”
2 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.