335 So. 2d 246 - Mays v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently June 1995
1 federal appellate · 17 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 Cobern v. State · 21 Ala. App. 289 - Douglass v. State · Pridmore v. State · 53 Ala. App. 661 - Tarver v. State · 52 Ala. App. 272 - Clay 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . .To sustain a charge of robbery it is not necessary that the stolen property be in the actual physical contact with the person of the victim, but it is sufficient if the property is taken from his presence or personal protection. Cobern v. State, 273 Ala. 547 , 142 So.2d 869 . Moreover, in an indictment for robbery, ownership of the stolen property is properly laid in the party in possession, either as owner, or bailee, or agent. See Bray v. State, 47 Ala.App. 308 , 253 So.2d 531 , and authorities therein cited. “It is not necessary that title be in the person robbed. Douglass v. State, 21 Ala.App. 289 , 107 So. 791 . Bowman v. State, 44 Ala.App. 331 , 208 So.2d 241 .””
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Calhoun v. State · Golston v. State““The three essential elements of the crime of robbery are: (a) felonious intent, (b) force, or putting in fear' as a means of effecting the intent, and (c) by that means of taking and carrying away of the property of another from his person or in his presence, all of these elements concurring in point of time. Douglass v. State, 21 Ala.App. 289 , 107 So. 791 ; Hardis v. State, 28 Ala.App. 524 , 189 So. 216 ; Cobern v. State, 273 Ala. 547 , 142 So.2d 869 ; Floyd v. State, 52 Ala.App. 291, 291 So.2d 382 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Calhoun v. State
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.