34 Ala. App. 1 - Ex Parte Stephenson’s Empirical Analysis
1947
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently February 1983
9 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 20 Ala. App. 514 - Robertson v. State · Ex parte Hardy · 25 Ala. App. 577 - Gunnels v. Gunnels · Webb v. Webb · Adair Bros. v. Gilmore
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““* * * Furthermore, the affidavit on which the contempt proceedings are based must be laid before the judge or court for judicial consideration; the mere filing of the affidavit is insufficient. The judge before whom it is presented is then called upon to decide whether a rule will issue. If the affidavit is sufficient the rule issues citing the alleged contemner to appear and show cause why he should not be punished for contempt. In effect the affidavit constitutes a criminal accusation against the alleged contemner, and is in many respects analogous to the .complaint before a magistrate upon which a warrant is issued. * * *””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hearn v. Hunt““* * * If at the hearing it be shown that the failure to pay the decreed alimony installments is not from mere contumacy, but from want of means, the result of misfortune not induced by fraudulent conduct on the defendant’s part, then there is no contempt. (Citations omitted.)” ( 40 So.2d at page 715 )”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hearn v. Hunt““It is therefore our opinion that the petitioner in this case was deprived of his liberty without due process of law, and that the order of the lower court denying and overruling his petition for a writ of habeas corpus was erroneous. * * *” ( 40 So.2d at page 716 )”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hearn v. Hunt
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.