Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 354 So. 2d 280 - Hammond v. State

354 So. 2d 280 - Hammond v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1977

Citation profile

32
cited by 32 later decisions
4
states following
December 2011
most recently cited

31 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently December 2011 · most notably 440 So. 2d 1155 - Brewer v. State (1983), 382 So. 2d 1162 - Bufford v. State (1980)

31 state decisions

16019771980199020002010decided

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 Coleman v. Alabama · Murphy v. Florida · United States v. White · Lopez v. United States · On Lee v. United States

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

  1. “Only the count upon which appellant was found guilty is subject to appellate review.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"did render criminal assistance to Charles Christopher Davenport a/k/a Charlie Davenport by intentionally hindering the apprehension, prosecution, conviction, or punishment of Charles Christopher Davenport a/k/a Charlie Davenport for conduct constituting a *Page 33 murder or Class A or Class B felony, towit: murder in that said [appellant] . . . falsely advis[ed] law enforcement that she was responsible for the shooting of Lonnell Davenport, in violation of Title 13A-10-43 of the Code of Alabama, 1975, and as last amended, against the peace and dignity of the State of Alabama."”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “a system of jury selection which excludes persons who are not registered voters would not substantially comply with statutory requirements (Alabama Code 1940, Title 30, Section 21) that the jury roll contain the names of all citizens living in the county who are generally reputed to be honest, intelligent and esteemed in the community for integrity, good character and sound judgment.”
    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.