367 So. 2d 508 - Kent v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently March 2010
21 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 Ex Parte Grimmett · 363 So. 2d 1020 - Thomas v. State · Stambaugh v. Hayes · Parker v. State · Bolt v. Davis
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"In reviewing the trial court's action in overruling a motion to exclude, the standard for review is whether at the time the motion was made legal evidence was submitted to the jury from which the jury could by fair inference find the defendant guilty. Stewart v. State , Ala. Cr. App., 350 So.2d 764 (1977). This court in applying such a standard will not substitute itself for the jury by attempting to determine the probative force and weight of the evidence. Toles v. State , 170 Ala. 99 , 54 So. 511 (1911); Leach v. State , 24 Ala. App. 423 , 136 So. 493 (1931). Our task is to determine if legal evidence was presented from which the jury by fair inference could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Howell v. State , Ala. Cr. App., 339 So.2d 138 (1976)."”
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.