39 Ala. App. 1 - Mason v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1956
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently February 2002 · most notably BURTON v. Sills (1968), 343 So. 2d 166 - State v. Amos (1977)
2 federal appellate · 36 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 Ex parte Garland · Charles Carlesi v. People of the State of New York · Burdick v. United States · In Re Lavine · 9 Cal. 2d 508 - People v. Biggs
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Instead of blotting out of existence the guilt of an offender, the very acceptance of a pardon is an implied acknowledgment of guilt. Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 , 35 S.Ct. 267 , 59 L.Ed. 476 [(1915)]. As stated in People ex rel. Prisament v. Brophy, 287 N.Y. 132 , 38 N.E.2d 468, 471 [(1942)], `Absolution, by temporal authority, for an offense implies, perhaps, that there is reason to believe the rigid enforcement of the usual penalty for the offense would work injustice.' A pardon cannot wipe out the historical fact of the conviction, and as appropriately stated by one court, it involves forgiveness, and not forgetfulness. State ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Irby, 190 Ark. 786 , 81 S.W.2d 419 [(1935)]."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“vest in the people of Alabama a real and vital social interest designed to enhance their own protection.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"`It is universally established that a pardon exempts the individual from the punishment which the law inflicts for the crime which he has committed; and generally speaking, it also removes any disqualifications or disabilities which would ordinarily have followed from the conviction. To say, however, that the offender is a `new man,' and as `innocent as if he had never committed the offense,' is to ignore the difference between the crime and the criminal. A person adjudged guilty of an offense is a convicted criminal, though pardoned; he may be deserving of punishment, though left unpunished; and the law may regard him as more dangerous to society than one never found guilty of crime, though it place no restraints upon him following his conviction. The criminal character or habits of the individual, the chief postulate of habitual criminal statutes, is often as clearly disclosed by a pardoned conviction as by one never condoned. . . .”
2 later decisions 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.