Lee v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 state decisions

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

1. ““ ‘It is further contended that a reversal is due because of the alleged severity of the punishment imposed. Since the sentence was within the statutory limit, however, it must be here affirmed. It was the prerogative of the trial court to assess such punishment, within legal limits, as sound discretion should dictate. Sales v. State, 31 Ala.App. 19 , 12 So.2d 101 certiorari denied, Id., 244 Ala. 30 , 12 So.2d 103 ; Wood v. State, 28 Ala.App. 464, 465 , 187 So. 250, 251 . Nothing is shown to indicate an abuse of this discretion.’ “The above is a correct statement of the doctrine governing which is that where a trial court acts within the limits provided by statute in imposing punishment, his discretion is not reviewable or revisible. Wood v. State, 28 Ala.App. 464 , 187 So. 250 ; Yates v. State, 31 Ala.App. 362 , 17 So.2d 776 ; Ganey v. State, 36 Ala.App. 570 , 60 So.2d 861 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 55 Ala. App. 323 - Smith v. State