398 So. 2d 349 - Kidd v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently December 2006
11 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 Aguilar v. Texas · Spinelli v. United States · United States v. Rabinowitz · Daniels v. State · 54 Ala. App. 707 - Palmer 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(a) Any person convicted of a second or subsequent offense under this chapter may be imprisoned for a term up to twice the term otherwise authorized, fined an amount up to twice that otherwise authorized or both. “(b) For purposes of this section, an offense is considered a second or subsequent offense, if, prior to his conviction of the offense, the offender has at any time been convicted under this chapter or under any statute of the United States or of any state relating to narcotic drugs, marihuana, depressant, stimulant or hallucinogenic drugs.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“"2. That Section 401 (a) and (b) of said Act (Title 22, Section 258 (47), Code of Alabama 1940, as amended 1971), is controlling as to the possession of marihuana for personal use on first offense, and also for punishment for subsequent offenses for possession offenses relating to the possession of marihuana. "3. That Section 407 (a) and (b) of Act No. 1407, Acts of Alabama 1971, Regular Session, (Title 22, Section 258 (33), Code of Alabama 1940, as amended, 1971), is controlling as to punishment for other types of narcotic drugs or drug offenses relating to marihuana other than possession of same."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““It is reasonably clear from Napier [v. State, 344 So.2d 1235 (Ala.Crim.App.1977) ], and from Funches v. State, 56 Ala.App. 22 , 318 So.2d 762 , cert, denied, 294 Ala. 757 , 318 So.2d 768 (1975), that when the State wishes to bring a defendant under the ambit of § 20-2-76 the prior conviction must be alleged in the indictment and later proven at trial.””
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.