Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 338 SO2D 492 - Fuller v. State

Fuller v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1976

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
January 1998
most recently cited

6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently January 1998

6 state decisions

20197619801990decided

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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · 49 Ala. App. 690 - Powers 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““ * * * The trial court should not be put in error for denying a motion to produce that which would call for a delay in, or interruption of a trial, in order to determine whether a particular document exists or can be found. Powers v. State, 49 Ala.App. 690 , 275 So.2d 369 .””
    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.