32 Ala. App. 606 - McDonald v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1947
Citation profile
34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently October 2017 · most notably 708 So. 2d 899 - Sheffield v. State (1997), 54 Ala. App. 707 - Palmer v. State (1975)
34 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 Board of Education of Jefferson County v. State · Thompson v. State · State Ex Rel. Shirley v. Lutz · Walton v. State · Preist 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A legislature will not be presumed to use language without any meaning or application....”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage““It is basic that criminal and penal statutes are to be strictly construed. Grantland v. State, 8 Ala.App. 319 , 62 So. 470 ; Jacobs v. State, 17 Ala.App. 396 , 85 So. 837 ; Knowles v. State, 19 Ala.App. 476 , 98 So. 207 . However, even penal laws are not to be construed so strictly as to defeat the obvious intent of the legislature. Walton v. State, 62 Ala. 197 ; Preist v. State, 5 Ala.App. 171 , 59 So. 318 . A literal interpretation which would defeat the purpose of a statute will not be adopted, if any other reasonable construction can be given to it Thompson v. State, 20 Ala. 54 — and the meaning of the legislature may be extended beyond the precise words used if such was the intent of the legislature. Graham v. City of Mobile, 17 Ala.App. 19 , 81 So. 355 .””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"There is no universal rule or absolute test by which directory provisions in a statute may in all circumstances be distinguished from those which are mandatory. However, in the determination of this question, as of every other question of statutory construction, the prime object is to ascertain the legislative intent. The legislative intent must be obtained from all the surrounding circumstances, and the determination does not depend on the form of the statute. Consideration must be given to the entire statute, its nature, its object, and the consequences which would result from construing it one way or the other.... [T]he language of a statute, however mandatory in form, may be deemed directory whenever legislative purpose can best be carried out by such construction, and the legislative intent does not require a mandatory construction; ... "In the application of subsidiary rules for the determination of the legislative intent in this respect there is no small confusion in the decisions, but certain principles have been recognized as established. Whether a statute is mandatory or directory depends on whether the thing directed to be done is of the essence of the thing required, or is a mere matter of form, and what is a matter of essence can often be determined only by judicial construction. Accordingly, when a particular provision of a statute relates to some immaterial matter, as to which compliance with the statute is a matter of convenience rather than substance, or whe”
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.