337 So. 2d 31 - Ball v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1976

Citation profile

cited by 22 later decisions

states following

May 1993

most recently cited

22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently May 1993

22 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 Barker v. Wingo · Faretta v. California · Davis v. Alaska · Chambers v. Mississippi · Pointer v. Texas

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

“"The latitude and extent of cross-examination has been held to be subject to some limitation. Both state and federal decisions vest trial judges with the limited discretion to cut off questions on cross-examination which: (1) are repetitious, (2) concern wholly collateral matters, (3) are irrelevant, or (4) are harassing, annoying or humiliating." (Citations omitted.)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Wood v. State · Rock v. State
“"The latitude and extent of cross-examination [have] been held to be subject to some limitation. Both state and federal decisions vest trial judges with limited discretion to cut off questions on cross-examination which (1) are repetitious, (2) concern wholly collateral matters, (3) are irrelevant, or (4) are harassing, annoying or humiliating. Connell v. State, 294 Ala. 477 , 318 So.2d 710 [1974], Cox v. State, 162 Ala. 66 , 50 So. 398 [1909]; Wright v. State, 49 Ala.App. 539 , 274 So.2d 95 [1973]; U.S.C.A. Amend. 6, notes 1091, et seq. "Even though trial judges are vested with certain discretion, the right of cross-examination is a fundamental constitutional right, and in cutting off cross-examination, a trial judge treads on extremely perilous ground. Upon proper objection by the accused, as was the case here, appellate courts should closely scrutinize any limitation placed upon that right."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. 531 So. 2d 1245 - Smith v. State
“Cross-examination is not limited to matters brought out on direct examination, but extends to all matters within the issues of the case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. 472 So. 2d 650 - Arthur 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.