Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 331 So. 2d 813 - Davis v. State

331 So. 2d 813 - Davis v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1976

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
1
states following
September 1990
most recently cited

11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently September 1990

11 state decisions

60197619801990decided

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 Phillips v. State · Espey v. State · Smarr v. State · Hines v. State · Payne 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. “"The demarcation between the fact, or highlights, of a former difficulty and its details is a tenuous and vague division. It is impossible to draw a clear line of demarcation between details or merits of a difficulty and what might be called the broad outlines of the difficulty. The very minute that a party proceeds to introduce evidential data to show the general nature of a former difficulty he, of necessity, must show some data additional to the bare fact of the occurrence. Because of this difficulty in distinguishing between the fact of and the details of a former difficulty, the modern decisions hold that a great measure of discretion should be vested in the trial court in the determination of such a distinction. Consequently, the rule now seems to be that the extent to which facts of a former difficulty may be proved is committed in measurable degree to the discretion of the trial court."”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “"In a prosecution for murder it is permissible for the State to prove that the defendant entertained feelings of hostility toward the deceased, and for this purpose, the fact, but not the details or particulars, of recent former difficulties may be shown. Jones v. State , 17 Ala. App. 394 , 85 So. 830 (1920). "In Judge McElroy's 'Law of Evidence in Alabama, 2d Ed. Vol. 1, page 107' it is stated: " 'In a series of opinions by the Court of Appeals, written by Judge Harwood, and apparently approved by the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari, the rule now seems to be established that the extent to which the facts (whether called details or some other name) of a former difficulty may be proved is committed in measurable degree to the discretion of the trial court.' (Citing cases)."”
    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.