Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 33 Ala. App. 119 - Williams v. State

33 Ala. App. 119 - Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1947

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
2
states following
March 1966
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 8 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Edmundson v. State · Teague v. State · Williams v. State · Pace v. State · 20 Ala. App. 122 - Fannin 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““While under the evidence it may be inferred that this appellant has fraudulently obtained goods, or has violated certain statutes relating to the giving of checks, there is no evidence whatsoever from which the jury could have inferred that this appellant had falsely made, altered, forged or counterfeited any instrument which purported to be the act of another. Such elements are essential to constituted forgery in the second degree as defined in Section 200, Title 14, Code of Alabama 1940.” ( 33 Ala.App., at page 121 , 31 So.2d at page 591.)”
    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.