38 Ala. App. 39 - Gayden v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1954
Citation profile
56 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently August 2004 · most notably 628 So. 2d 1012 - Breckenridge v. State (1993), Hochman v. State (1956)
56 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 · Miles v. State · Flowers v. Auto Mut. Indemnity Co. · Grattan v. State · 16 Ala. App. 10 - Addington 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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The indictment must state the facts constituting the offense in ordinary and concise language, without prolixity or repetition, in such a manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended, and with that degree of certainty which will enable the court, on conviction, to pronounce the proper judgment. . ."”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Manson v. State · Phelps v. State“"An indictment should be sufficiently specific in its averments in four prime aspects to afford this guaranty: (1) To identify the accusation or charge lest the accused should be tried for an offense different from that intended by the grand jury. (2) To enable the defendant to prepare for his defense. (3) That the judgment may inure to his subsequent protection and foreclose the possibility of being twice put in jeopardy for the same offense. (4) To enable the court, after conviction, to pronounce judgment on the record. “This protection which the law furnishes to one charged with crime has not been relaxed or relented by our courts throughout its history.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““ * * * It is not sufficient merely to pursue the words of that statute, because it merely designates the offense, but does not characterize it by prescribing in express terms its constituents; and because by pursuing the mere words of the statute, there is no full, direct, and express allegation of the main fact in the doing of which the offense consists, to-wit, the employment of a substance in its nature calculated to destroy human life.”
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.