385 So. 2d 1005 - Ex Parte Collins’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

58 state decisions

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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[O]ur Alabama case law is clear that there must be a material variance between indictment and proof before a conviction will be overturned for that reason.”

   10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Holland v. State · Lipham v. State

2. ““The double-jeopardy provision of the Fifth Amendment ... does not mean that every time a defendant is put to trial before a competent tribunal he is entitled to go free if the trial fails to end in a final judgment. Such a rule would create an insuperable obstacle to the administration of justice in many cases in which there is no semblance of the type of oppressive practices at which the double-jeopardy prohibition is aimed. There may be unforeseeable circumstances that arise during a trial making its completion impossible .... [T]he purpose of law to protect society from those guilty of crimes frequently would be frustrated by denying courts power to put the defendant to trial again.... It is settled that the duty of the judge in this event is to discharge the jury and direct a retrial. What has been said is enough to show that a defendant’s valued right to have his trial completed by a particular tribunal must in some instances be subordinated to the public’s interest in fair trials designed to end in just judgments.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ex Parte Sullivan · 427 So. 2d 148 - Wilson v. State

3. “"The words `manifest necessity' appropriately characterize the magnitude of the prosecutor's burden. For that reason Mr. Justice Story's classic formulation of the test has been quoted over and over again to provide guidance in the decision of a wide variety of cases. Nevertheless, those words do not describe a standard that can be applied mechanically or without attention to the particular problem confronting the trial judge. Indeed, it is manifest that the key word `necessity' cannot be interpreted literally; instead, contrary to the teaching of Webster, we assume that there are degrees of necessity and we require a `high degree' before concluding that a mistrial is appropriate."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 530 So. 2d 865 - Ex Parte Whirley