34 Ala. App. 534 - Evans v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 state decisions

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

1. ““ * * * a building, structure, etc., unless shown by an averment to that effect may reasonably be presumed to be empty, thereby affording no reasonable or satisfactory basis on which to found any larcenous or other felonious intent by reason of entry thereinto. “Burglary in the second degree, like trespass is an offense against possession, and hence the test for determining in whom ownership of the burglarized premises should be laid in an indictment for this offense is not ownership in the sense of legal title, but ownership in the sense of right of occupancy or possession. The ownership in such indictments is therefore properly laid in the occupant at the time the offense was committed, unless the occupant is a mere servant. Adams v. State, 13 Ala.App. 330 , 69 So. 357. Precise accuracy in alleging the ownership of the house, not being an element of the crime of burglary in the second degree, is not required, and reference to ownership is only to increase the accuracy of the identity of the building allegedly burglarized. * * * ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Anderson v. State · 43 Ala. App. 287 - Miller v. State

2. ““1. The Grand Jury of said County charge that before the finding of this indictment, Jimmy L. Moore, alias Pete Moore, did with intent to steal break into and enter the uninhabited dwelling house of Hugh Smith; “2. And the Grand Jury of said county further charge that before the finding of this indictment Jimmy L. Moore, alias Pete. Moore, did with intent to steal break into and enter the camp house of Hugh Smith, a building in which goods, wares, and household furniture, things of value, were kept for use, sale or deposit; against the peace and dignity of the State of Alabama.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Moore v. State · 35 Ala. App. 95 - Moore v. State

3. ““Nor do we consider count two defective because it omitted to describe the goods, wares, and merchandise mentioned therein as things of value. The words ‘goods, wares, and merchandise’ in and of themselves import value. Danner v. State, 54 Ala. 127 , 25 Am.Rep. 662 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 43 Ala. App. 287 - Miller v. State