369 So. 2d 1276 - Ivey v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently March 2014
16 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 Brown v. United States · Bridges v. State · Hubbard v. State · Coats v. State · Smith 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“. . . [T]he rule stated in Crawford v. State , 262 Ala. 191 , 192 , 78 So.2d 291 (1955), and Padgett v. State , 49 Ala. App. 130 , 136 , 269 So.2d 147 , cert. denied, 289 Ala. 749 , 269 So.2d 154 (1972)”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“"`The rule on the admissibility of experiments in open court is stated in Shows v. Brunson, 229 Ala. 682, 682 , 159 So. 248 (1935). "`"Experiments or tests of this character in open court are usually within the discretion of the trial judge, guided by a sound judgment as to whether the result will be sufficiently relevant and material to warrant such procedure. 22 C.J. p. 700, § 899. "`"Similarity of conditions, and a test that will go to the substantial question in hand, should appear." "`See also Hawkins v. State, 53 Ala.App. 89, 93 , 297 So.2d 813 (1974). Both the scope and extent of the experiment, if allowed, rest within the sound discretion of the trial judge. The exercise of that discretion will not be reversed on appeal unless it has been clearly and grossly abused. Campbell v. State, 55 Ala. 80 (1876); C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence, § 81.02(1) (3rd ed.1977). "`While the conditions of the experiment and of the occurrence in issue should be substantially similar, they need not be identical. McElroy, 81.01(4). "`"A reasonable or substantial similarity suffices and only where the conditions are dissimilar in an essential particular should the evidence of an experiment be rejected. If we have a case where the conditions are not identical, then the dissimilarity goes to the weight of the evidence of the experiment but not to its admissibility." "`See also Eddy v. State, 352 So.2d 1161 (Ala.Cr.App.1977).' " Ivey v. State, 369 So.2d 1276, 1278-79 (Ala.Cr.App.1979). S”
2 later decisions 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.