Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 30 Ala. App. 136 - Melton v. State

30 Ala. App. 136 - Melton v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1941

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
3
states following
February 1983
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently February 1983

10 state decisions

3019411950196019701980decided

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 Cabler v. Mobile County · Bilbro v. Drakeford

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

  1. “"Appeal is from an order of nolle prosequi upon motion of the solicitor, with the stipulation that defendant shall pay the costs of the case. The defendant, failing to pay the costs, was sentenced to 103 days hard labor, and appeals. "This purported judgment, we think, is totally void and inoperative. The law of costs and fees is penal and must be strictly construed. Cabler v. Mobile County, 230 Ala. 118, 119 , 159 So. 692 . Costs and fees can only be taxed when expressly provided by law. 1923 Code of Alabama, Section 3734; Bilbro v. Drakeford, 78 Ala. 318 . There is no authority of law for such taxation of costs, the case against the defendant having been dismissed. Costs and fees are assessable against a defendant in a criminal case only on his conviction. Bilbro case, supra. Some sections of the Code, supra, each with this specific proviso, are listed: 3738, solicitor's fees; 3740, clerk's fees; 3750, sheriff's fees; 3755, preliminary proceedings; 3763, witness fees. "The reason for our conclusion is otherwise obvious. The order of dismissal or nolle prosequi of the case is a judicial determination in favor of the defendant and against his conviction. "A judgment such as the foregoing presents the anomaly of releasing the defendant upon the charge and, at the same time, of not releasing him, but, instead, rendering judgment against him and attempting to enforce that judgment by a restraint of his liberty. The inconsistency is manifest. The law does not permit it. "It is ob”
    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.