39 Ala. App. 246 - Powell v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently July 1984
19 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 Parsons v. State · Way v. State · Barbour v. State · Beaird v. State · Sylvester 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““During the cross-examination of appellant he was asked by the Solicitor how many times he had had his driving license taken away. The court sustained the objection interposed to this question. “He was then asked if he had not been convicted of driving while intoxicated. The court sustained the objection to this question. Defense counsel then moved for a mistrial. The court denied this motion, and instructed the jury as follows: ‘Gentlemen, there is no testimony to that effect before you. For all you know he would have said no. That is what you are to presume.’ “Both questions were of course improper. However, in view of the abundant tendencies of the evidence showing appellant’s guilt, and the effort o.f the, judge to eradicate the prejudicial effect of the questions, we are unwilling to say that the appellant’s rights were probably injuriously affected by the Court’s action in denying the motion for a mistrial. Supreme Court Rule 45, Code 1940, Tit. 7 Appendix.” (Italics supplied.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“"Although the state waived objection to this evidence, we do not consider that the trial judge should be considered in error for refusing a charge which has for its major premise immaterial evidence."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““. . . As to matters which can be said to be prejudicial per se, we can as a matter of law ascribe reversible error, e.g., ‘honky-tonk’ in Nix v. State, 32 Ala.App. 136 , 22 So.2d 449 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.