379 So. 2d 336 - Edwards v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2013
22 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 37 Ala. App. 96 - Holloway v. State · 53 Ala. App. 663 - Fitzgerald v. State · 344 So. 2d 533 - Andrews v. State · 344 So. 2d 538 - Andrews v. State · Underwood 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Generally, a demurrer is the proper procedure to raise defects in an indictment. Andrews v. State , 344 So.2d 533 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 344 So.2d 538 (Ala. 1977). "Since a plea to the merits admits the validity of an indictment, a demurrer *Page 1094 filed after arraignment and after a plea of not guilty is properly stricken. Underwood v. State , 248 Ala. 308 , 27 So.2d 492 (1946). The right to file a demurrer is waived unless the demurrer is filed before a plea to the merits. Holloway v. State , 37 Ala. App. 96 , 64 So.2d 115 (1953). If an indictment is merely voidable and subject to demurrer, the failure to demur will prevent appellate review of the indictment's shortcomings. Williams v. State , 333 So.2d 610 (Ala.Cr.App.), affirmed, 333 So.2d 613 (Ala. 1976)."”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“An indictment for robbery must aver the denomination of the money taken or that the particular denomination is unknown to the grand jury. [Citations omitted.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"An indictment for robbery must aver the denomination of the money taken or that the particular denomination is unknown to the grand jury. [Citations omitted.] "Thus, while the present indictment is defective and insufficient because it does not aver the denomination of the money taken, this particular defect does not vitiate the indictment, Reed v. State, 88 Ala. 36 , 6 So. 840 (1889), because the denomination or the kind of money taken is not a material ingredient of the offense of robbery. Wesley v. State, 61 Ala. 282 (1878). An indictment which does not specify the number and denomination of the money involved is merely voidable and not void; it is not so deficient as to deny the accused due process of law. Williams v. State, 49 Ala.App. 74, 76 , 268 So.2d 855 (1972)."”
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.