39 Ala. App. 175 - Christison v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently January 1987
21 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 Wright v. State · Mitchell v. State · 37 Ala. App. 57 - Huddleston v. State · Lynn v. State · Payne 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘ * * * there was absolutely no evidence introduced to prove that the defendant embezzled or converted to her own use any United States Currency, but to the contrary, the entire body of the evidence dealt with the alleged forgery and/or embezzlement of certain bank checks.’”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Is proper proof of a verdict of ‘not guilty’ on an indictment charging “ ‘The State of Alabama] Circuit Court - County J Fall Term, 1954 # * * * * “ ‘Count Two “ ‘The Grand Jury of said County further charges that before the finding of this Indictment, A. B., whose name to the Grand Jury is otherwise unknown than as stated, the Custodian of-County School Funds, and being then and there entrusted with the disburse-_ ment of money or funds belonging to the Board of Education of - County, Alabama, did embezzle or convert to his own use, or to the use of another, $250.00, lawful United States Currency, which said money had come into his possession by virtue of his public office or public trust, as above set out, contrary to law and against the peace and dignity of the State of Alabama.’”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Christison v. State““The settled rule in this State is that the separation of the jury pending trial for felony cases creates, prima facie, a cause for reversible error. When the fact of the separation is established the burden is on the State to affirmatively show that no injury resulted to defendant from the separation. . ...” (Citations omitted.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Burnett v. State
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.