348 So. 2d 838 - Chatom v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently April 2002
1 federal appellate · 18 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 Maslankowski v. Beam Ex Rel. Quernemeon · Brooke v. People · People v. Williams · Harris v. State · Wilbanks 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The result of examinations and test, blood-grouping tests, fingerprint comparisons, and ballistics tests are admissible, provided a proper foundation is laid. Here, the foundation was very limited and had there been a request, the trial court would have been required to allow the defendant to thoroughly question the expert concerning his training and experience, to present other testimony that the test was not scientifically acceptable."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“". . . A defendant cannot speculate on what a witness will say, and when the answer is responsive but unfavorable move to have that answer excluded. Tanner v. State , 37 Ala. App. 256 , 66 So.2d 827 , cert. granted, 259 Ala. 306 , 66 So.2d 836 (1953); Matson v. State , 27 Ala. App. 396 , 173 So. 612 , cert. den., 234 Ala. 74 , 173 So. 617 (1937); Ala. Dig. , Crim. Law, 696 (5). . . ."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The court explained that the trial court must be satisfied with the competency of the operator and the methods used. The court, nevertheless, held that the predicate established in Chatom , although very limited, was sufficient to support the trial court's decision to admit those specific atomic absorption test results. In Whetstone the court explained that the proponent of scientific test results has an extensive burden to lay a basic predicate *Page 303 for their admission to insure the reliability of those specific results. The court stated that”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.