Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 358 SO2D 800 - Walker v. State

Walker v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1978

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
2
states following
October 2016
most recently cited

7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently October 2016

7 state decisions

5019781980199020002010decided

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 Richardson v. Hynson, Westcott & Dunning, Inc. · Edwards v. State · Wilson v. State · Stokley v. State · Morris 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““In all instances, the question is whether the proposed evidence is primarily to prove the commission of another disconnected crime, or whether it is material to some issue in the case. If it is material and logically relevant to an issue in the case, whether to prove an element of the crime, or to controvert a material contention of defendant, it is not inadmissible because in making the proof the commission of an independent disconnected crime is an inseparable feature of it.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““. . . The state cannot make its own setting for the justification of illegal evidence, so as to permit the contradiction of what is brought out, though on cross-examination of witnesses for defendant.” Dickinson v. State, 228 Ala. 28, 29 , 152 So. 29, 30 (1934). See also, Walker v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 358 So.2d 800, 806 (1978).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “must be a factual disqualification, as distinguished from the notions of a particular litigant, that he would fare better before another judge.”
    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.