Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 369 So. 2d 1243 - Cook v. State

369 So. 2d 1243 - Cook v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1977

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
1
states following
December 1995
most recently cited

25 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently December 1995 · most notably 515 So. 2d 55 - Kinder v. State (1986), 523 So. 2d 1087 - Rutledge v. State (1987)

25 state decisions

160197719801990decided

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 Kotteakos v. United States · Cross v. State · Fuller v. State · Seibold v. State · Embrey 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “within the latitude allowed prosecutors in their exhortations to the jury to discharge their duties in such a manner as, not only to punish crime, but to protect the public from like offenses and as an example to deter others from committing like offenses.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"Before an objection because of false grammar, incorrect spelling, or mere clerical errors is entertained, the court should be satisfied of the tendency of the error to mislead, or to leave in doubt the meaning of the charge to a person of common understanding, reading, not for the purpose of finding defects, but to ascertain what is intended to be charged. Grant v. State, 55 Ala. 201 (1876). Neither clerical nor grammatical errors vitiate an indictment unless they change the words or obscure the meaning, Grant, supra, or unless the error changes a word into one of different import or the sense is so obscure that one of ordinary intelligence cannot determine with certainty the meaning from the context. Sanders v. State, 2 Ala.App. 13 , 56 So. 69 (1911)...." Cook v. State, 369 So.2d 1243 (Ala.Cr. App.1977), affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds, 369 So.2d 1251 (Ala.1978).”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “"MR. JOHNSON: Don't you know that right now out there on every corner, in every little store, in every little Quick Mart, in every little 7-11 Store they are out there, the owners, the proprietors, and they are considering the odds. They are wondering which way you're going to stack them. Don't you know that the Recardo Cook's and the would be Recardo Cook's of this world are out there and they are considering the odds too. Don't you know they are wondering if you're going to say to them, "We're going to give you a license. We're going to give you a license to kill'."”
    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.