39 Ala. App. 182 - Beasley v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 53 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently August 2009 · most notably United States v. Boney (1992), Aaron v. State (1961)
2 federal appellate · 53 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 Wilson · Batson v. State Ex Rel. Davis · Raub v. Carpenter · 38 Ala. App. 64 - Wright v. State · Durham v. States
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"If Mills had served on the jury which tried the case, the trial court's action in refusing to grant a new trial to defendants would require a reversal, for we are in accord with the opinions of the Court of Appeals hereafter cited, which hold that a new trial must be granted where a prospective juror did not answer correctly the material questions propounded by the court in qualifying the jury and where such juror was accepted on the jury which tried the case. A new trial must be granted under such circumstances irrespective of whether the concealment was deliberate or unintentional. Leach v. State, 31 Ala.App. 390 , 18 So.2d 285 ; Griffith v. State, 31 Ala.App. 432 , 18 So.2d 284 . * * *"”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Hayes v. Boykin · Gann v. State“3In Beasley v. State , the Court of Appeals recognized that the appellant's counsel and the court were misled by the juror's failure to respond. 39 Ala.App. 182 , 96 So.2d 693 (1957). The court stated, `As to due diligence, we consider that a defendant is not required to search the records of all the courts of this State and of its municipalities running back to the time when the oldest venireman became 14 years of age.' 39 Ala. App. at 189 , 96 So.2d at 700 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“A conviction of adultery, though only for a misdemeanor, is both a disqualification [under Code 1940, Title 30, § 21, the predecessor statute of Code 1975, § 12-16-60] and a common law ground for challenge to the principal cause ... and, therefore, under § 64, it is contemplated that such a prospective petit juror should be weeded out by the trial judge even though by some neglect or design of the jury commission his name should appear on the venire.”
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.