375 So. 2d 561 - Peoples v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently May 2015
20 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 Fletcher v. State · 344 So. 2d 1264 - Slinker v. State · Rose v. Magro · 356 So. 2d 743 - Witherspoon v. State · 348 So. 2d 880 - Radford 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`In selecting a jury for a particular case, "the nature, variety, and extent of the questions that should be asked prospective jurors”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Bracewell v. State · Smith v. State““It appears that there is now no statutory authority that replaces the quoted section of the 1923 Code and the 1940 Code as it expressly pertained to ‘criminal’ as well as ‘civil’ cases. As to trials in civil cases, the mentioned section of the 1923 Code and the 1940 Code, respectively, is largely superseded, but somewhat qualified, by Rule 47(a) of Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure. “We do not attempt to explain the reason for the absence at this time of statutory authority on the subject of the sections mentioned of the previous Codes pertaining to the right of parties in criminal cases to examine prospective jurors for information that would tend to aid the parties in the process of selecting the jury to try the case. However, in noting this absence of the former codal provision, we do not think that a different decision from that which we now make would be appropriate even if the content of the sections of the previous Codes as quoted above were in the 1975 Code. “In considering the quoted section of the Code then applicable, it was stated in Rose v. Magro, 220 Ala. 120 , 124 So. 296, 299 (1929): “ ‘... The statute (section 8662, Code) was not intended to take away the discretion of the trial court in such a matter.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““In civil and criminal cases, either party shall have the right to examine jurors as to their qualifications, interest, or bias that would affect the trial of the case, and shall have the right, under the direction of the court, to examine said jurors as to any matter that might tend to affect their verdict.””
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.