35 Ala. App. 147 - Wyatt v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1950
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 87 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 89 later decisions — most recently May 1991 · most notably Birwood Paper Company v. Damsky (1969), 375 So. 2d 1257 - Williams v. State (1979)
2 federal appellate · 87 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 31 Ala. App. 21 - Wilson v. State · Noles v. State · McCoy v. State · Nordan v. State · Orr 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 89 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Testimony of a witness, in a former trial or action, given (1) under oath, (2) before a tribunal or officer having by law the authority to take testimony and legally requiring an opportunity for cross-examination, (3) under circumstances affording the party against whom the witness was offered an opportunity to test his credibility by cross-examination and (4) given in a litigation in which the issues and parties were substantially the same as in the present cause, is receivable as evidence in the present trial (5) when the personal attendance of the witness to testify in the present trial is not feasible."”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage“"In our opinion no error resulted from the fact that the . . . occurrence took place in the presence of the jury. . . . "This testimonial exemption [for spouses] is however a privilege, purely personal to the witness, and is solely a matter between the witness and the court. "Thus even though Mrs. Wyatt had told the Solicitor she did not wish to testify against her husband, this was but an expression of her then existing intent, in no way binding on her and subject to being changed the next moment. "It is to the court that the claim of privilege must be made known. "Mrs. Wyatt was called before the court for this purpose. No objection was interposed by the appellant to the procedure followed, nor was any request made that the jury be excused. "After Mrs. Wyatt had claimed her privilege the appellant then objected to the questions, and moved for a mistrial. If any merit ever attached to appellant's objection to the procedure followed, which we doubt, clearly his complaint of the court's action was too tardily expressed to be of avail to him." 35 Ala. App. at 154 , 46 So.2d at 843 (emphasis in original).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“are in restraint of liberty and penal in nature.... The bond in such cases, when allowed, is payable to the State, and not to any individual. The State is a party to such proceedings, which are criminal proceedings preventive in nature.”
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.