Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 395 So. 2d 1119 - Goodwin v. State

395 So. 2d 1119 - Goodwin v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
March 1993
most recently cited

3 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Board of Education v. Mapp · 31 Ala. App. 77 - Kabase v. State · Malone v. State · 50 Ala. App. 271 - McKinney v. State · Jones v. Buckelew

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

  1. “"Although Murray v. State was not in point in Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Bolton , we are convinced that it is in point in this case and that the trial court was in error in requiring the defendant to proceed to select a jury from the panel from which the previous jury had been selected. We do not say that there could never be an occasion in which an objecting party should be required to strike twice from the same panel in the same case, but we are convinced that at least generally he should not be required to do so and that there is nothing in the case before us to constitute a valid exception to that general rule. As to this, we see little, if any, discretion vested in the trial court, such as its discretion in the matter of granting a continuance. There is more involved here than *Page 692 whether a motion to continue should have been granted. It is apparent, if not conclusive, that, without the panel from which the jury was selected for the trial of the case, a jury would not have been available for that purpose and for that reason the trial would necessarily have been postponed."”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “"There was error on the part of counsel for the State, but there was no error on the part of the Court in overruling defendant's motion for a mistrial. It was made clear to the jury that an inadvertent mistake had been made by counsel for the State and that the information obtained thereby should be disregarded. We find neither error on the part of the Court nor substantial injury to defendant."”
    1 later decision 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.