Watts v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently February 2005 · most notably 446 So. 2d 675 - Crosslin v. State (1983), 374 So. 2d 910 - Commander v. State (1978)
38 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 Anderson v. State · George v. State · Nichols v. State · Brothers v. State · Grammer 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The worst wretch that walks the earth is entitled to a fair trial, for the law is superior to all persons. As much as we may regret some results of the law, the law must be preserved if this constitutional democracy is to survive.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage““The record tends to show that these convictions were admitted under the theory that all of the acts and declarations of a defendant are admissible under a plea of 'not guilty by reason of insanity.’ It is true that this court has held in a long line of cases that ‘wide latitude’ is allowed both the defendant and the State in inquiries into a person’s mental state when an issue as to the sanity of such a person is presented. (Citing numerous cases). “However, the latest of these cases have held that there is a necessary limitation on these inquiries in that the ‘acts, declarations and conduct inquired about must have a tendency to shed light on the accused’s state of mind when the act for which he is being tried was committed.” Nichols v. State, supra ( 276 Ala. 209 , 160 So.2d 619 ); Barbour v. State, supra ( 262 Ala. 297, 303 , 78 So.2d 328 ; Peoples v. State, supra ( 257 Ala. 295, 299 , 58 So.2d 599 ); Smith v. State, supra ( 257 Ala. 47, 49 , 57 So.2d 513 ); Hall v. State, supra ( 248 Ala. 33, 36 , 26 So.2d 566 ); Coffey v. State, supra ( 244 Ala. 514, 521 , 14 So.2d 122 ); Mitchell v. Parker, 224 Ala. 149 , 138 So. 832 .” * * * * * * “It would seem clear, therefore, that even though a ‘wide latitude’ is given both the defendant and the State in cases of this type, there is the restriction, imposed by this Court, that prior convictions to be admitted must be relevant to the issue of the defendant’s insanity at the time he committed the now charged act.””
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.