37 Ala. App. 533 - Alexander v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1954
Citation profile
45 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently August 1978 · most notably 37 Ala. App. 656 - McMurtrey v. State (1954), 40 Ala. App. 106 - Haynes v. State (1958)
45 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 33 Ala. App. 269 - Bankhead v. State · Elkins v. State · 31 Ala. App. 376 - Daniel v. State · Champion v. State · Gordon 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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The criterion for admission of expert testimony is that the witness, by study, practice, experience, or observation as to the particular subject should have acquired a knowledge beyond the ordinary witness. Scott v. State, 34 Ala.App. 18 , 37 So.2d 670 ; Daniel v. State, 31 Ala.App. 376 , 17 So. 2d 542 . The question of a witness’ qualifications to testify as an expert is a matter largely within the discretion of the trial court. See 6 Ala.Dig., Crim.Law ®^481 for innumerable authorities.” See Alexander v. State, 37 Ala.App. 533 , 71 So.2d 520, 524 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““In his argument in support of the contention that the court erred in over ruling his objections to certain remarks by the Solicitor in his argument to the jury, appellant’s counsel states: ‘It appears that the county solicitor attempted to prejudice the jury by arguing to them that the defendant was a bootlegger.’ “An examination of the record shows that the remarks were to the effect that the appellant had furnished whiskey on the occasion of the killing. Liberal rules are allowed counsel in drawing inferences from the evidence in their arguments to the jury. Mississippi Fire Ins. Co. v. Perdue, 217 Ala. 292 , 116 So. 142 , 62 A.L.R. 626 . In view of the testimony of Cowen and Barkley to the effect that neither of them carried any whiskey to appellant’s home, and that they did not see the deceased bring any, we think the Solicitor was within the bounds of allowable arguable inferences deducible from the evidence in these instances.””
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.