Wright v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1966

Citation profile

cited by 42 later decisions

states following

August 2010

most recently cited

42 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently August 2010 · most notably 710 So. 2d 1276 - Williams v. State (1996), 50 Ala. App. 176 - Thigpen v. State (1973)

42 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 Escobedo v. Illinois · Duncan v. State · Brothers v. State · Kissic v. State · Tiner 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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

“Argument of counsel should not be so restricted as to prevent reference, by way of illustration, to historical facts and public characters, or to principles of divine law or biblical teachings.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 455 So. 2d 210 - Williams v. State · 710 So. 2d 1276 - Williams v. State
““ ‘The demarcation between the fact, or highlights, of a former difficulty, and its details, is indeed a tenuous and vague division. A measure of discretion should and must be allowed the trial judge in determining the extent of detailing necessary to picture and constitute the fact. Brothers v. State, 236 Ala. 448 , 183 So. 433 .’ ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Emerson v. State · 52 Ala. App. 282 - Tillman v. State
““While these statements in the present case may have prejudiced the appellant in the eyes of the jury, yet, in criminal prosecutions the conduct and declarations of an accused on other occasions are relevant when they tend to shed light on his motives and intentions in doing the act complained of. Hall v. State, 208 Ala. 199 , 94 So. 59 . Particularly do these statements of the appellant in this prosecution tend to shed light upon whether the shooting was accidental, as contended by the appellant, or was intentional.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
e.g. Chavers v. State

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.