King v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"From the record of the trial court on this petition, the briefs and oral argument we perceive that the principal issues here concern the nature and availability of post-conviction relief, whether it is found under Rule 60 (b), ARCP, or common law coram nobis and whether the petitioner has met the requirements thereunder. "Noting that the case comes to us on certiorari from the Court of Criminal Appeals, we cannot go to the record since we are limited by findings of fact of that court. Grant v. City of Mobile , 291 Ala. 458 , 282 So.2d 291 (1973). From what is before us, however, we cannot determine whether that court's decision recognized that King had a remedy either under 60 (b), or the common law standards set out in Johnson v. Williams , 244 Ala. 391 , 13 So.2d 683 (1943), and case law thereunder, but failed to establish it, or whether it decided no remedy existed for King either under Rule 60 (b), or common law coram nobis, despite the facts established in the trial court as set out in the record. From this record, however, it appears that the petitioner may have raised a serious constitutional issue. For this reason, we must remand this case to the *Page 132 Court of Criminal Appeals in order to allow that court to make such a determination as the record justifies."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 410 So. 2d 130 - Ex Parte Ellison