40 Ala. App. 129 - Mabry v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1959
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 54 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently December 2010 · most notably State v. Thompson (1966), 49 Ala. App. 233 - Thigpen v. State (1972)
4 federal appellate · 54 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3500
Relies on Jencks v. United States · People Ex Rel. Lemon v. Supreme Court · Stokley v. State · Parsons v. State · Skumro 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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"`Documents are not the subject to inspection for the mere reason that they will be useful in supplying a clew whereby evidence can be gathered. Documents to be subject to inspection must be evidence themselves.'"”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““This court, in two cases, has held that it is within the discretion of the trial court as to whether a prosecuting officer will be compelled to turn over to the defense written notes made by officers during the investigation of a .crime. See Vaughn v. State, 25 Ala.App. 204 , 143 So. 211 ; Bailey v. State, 24 Ala.App. 339 , 135 So. 407 . See also 156 A. L.R. 345-355 .... “Further, it is the holding of a majority of the highest courts of our sister States that it is not error for a trial court to refuse to order a prosecuting attorney to produce and make available for inspection by an accused statements given by the State’s witnesses to the prosecuting attorney . . . .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““We have carefully studied this record in the light of such contention. We find nothing therein which, in our opinion, could rationally be construed as probably injuring the appellant in any of his substantial rights, whether such instances be considered separately, or cumulatively. Being clear to this conclusion we see no need to burden this opinion by any detailed exposition on this point. In fact, we are impressed after a study of this record with the successful effort of the trial judge to conduct this trial in an atmosphere of complete fairness and impartiality.” [ 110 So.2d 259 .]”
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.