383 So. 2d 863 - Kilpatrick v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
4
cited by 4 later decisions
2
states following
May 1987
most recently cited
4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Milam v. State · 360 So. 2d 358 - Waters v. State · 360 So. 2d 367 - Pharris v. State · 51 Ala. App. 589 - Character v. State · 55 Ala. App. 318 - Scott 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Where property is stolen in one county by one party and taken to another county and sold to a second party who had no connection with the theft, the second party cannot be tried in the county where the theft was committed absent some proof connecting him with the theft or possession in that first county. Section 15-2-9 , Code of Ala. 1975, does not have universal application in buying, receiving, and concealing cases. That principle is recognized in a careful reading of Milam v. State , 240 Ala. 314 , 198 So. 863 (1940), although Milam is often cited in support of the `boiler plate' proposition that buying, receiving, or concealing, etc., is an ambulatory offense."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Ex Parte Watts“When property is stolen in one county and carried into another, venue is in either county”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ex Parte Watts
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.