Woodward v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 state decisions

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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In Woodward v. State, 3 So.3d 941 (Ala.Crim.App.2008), this Court stated: “ ‘We begin by noting that a probationary period does not end until: (1) the probationer satisfactorily fulfills all the conditions of probation and the actual probationary term ordered by the court expires, see § 15-22-54(a), Ala.Code 1975 (“When the conditions of probation or suspension of sentence are fulfilled, the court shall, by order duly entered on its minutes, discharge the defendant.”), and Rule 27.3(c), Ala. R.Crim. P. (“Probation automatically terminates upon successful completion of the term of probation set by the court”); (2) if the probationer has not satisfactorily fulfilled all the conditions of probation, the maximum period of probation allowed by law expires, see § 15-22-54(a), Ala.Code 1975 (“in no case shall ... the maximum probation period of a defendant guilty of a felony exceed five years”); or (3) the probationer is formally discharged from probation by the court, see § 15-22-54(b), Ala.Code 1975 (“The court granting probation may, upon the recommendation of the officer supervising the probationer, terminate all authority and supervision over the probationer prior to the declared date of completion of probation upon showing a continued satisfactory compliance with the conditions of probation over a sufficient portion of the period of probation.”), and Rule 27.3(b), Ala. R.Crim. P. (“At any time during a term of probation, the sentencing court may terminate probation and discha”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Perkins v. State · Jones v. State

2. “'The trial court's authority to enter a Rule 60(a) [, Ala. R. Civ. P.,] order or a judgment nunc pro tunc is not unbridled. Merchant v. Merchant , 599 So.2d 1198 (Ala. Civ. App. 1992). It cannot be used to enlarge or modify a judgment or to make a judgment say something other than what was originally said. Michael [v. Michael , 454 So.2d 1035 (Ala. Civ. App. 1984) ].'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Shapley v. State

3. “However, 'while [ Rule 60, Ala. R. Civ. P.,] authorizes a court to amend a judgment to correct a clerical error, [it] does not authorize the court to render a different judgment.' Mullins v. Mullins , 770 So.2d 624 , 625 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000). 'Although Rule 60(a) states that a court may correct a clerical mistake or an error arising from oversight or omission”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Shapley v. State