409 So. 2d 924 - Bledsoe v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently March 2007
8 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 Clemmons v. State · Morgan v. State · 56 Ala. App. 275 - Clemmons v. State · 41 Ala. App. 192 - Christison v. State · Williams 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A major contention of appellant is that the trial court erred in overruling defendant’s objections to the testimony of witnesses that during the same month of the commission of the alleged crime in the instant case, the defendant was in possession of and uttered three forged checks which purported to be checks of the same drawer and drawn on the same bank as the check in the instant case. To so hold would be in conflict with what has been held in many cases, including Preyer v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 369 So.2d 901 (1979); Christison v. State, 41 Ala.App. 192 , 142 So.2d 666 (1960), aff’d 273 Ala. 564 , 142 So.2d 676 (1962); Kirby v. State, 17 Ala. App. 151 , 82 So. 641 , cert. denied, 203 Ala. 473 , 83 So. 416 (1919); and Williams v. State, 126 Ala. 50 , 28 So. 632 (1900).””
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.