41 Ala. App. 85 - Lindsay v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1960
Citation profile
57 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently March 1990 · most notably 48 Ala. App. 726 - Eady v. State (1972), Boulden v. State (1965)
57 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 Sorrells v. United States · Sherman v. United States · Masciale v. United States · United States v. Sherman · Mason 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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Even though the State, to secure evidence, is shown to have tempted the accused, yet if there is proof of his active appetite for forbidden fruit, the issue of causation is one of fact for the jury.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““After the State laid a foundation of authenticity and electronic capability, the trial judge took the precaution of having an advance playing of the recordings outside the hearing of the jury. He denied a request that the court reporter transcribe the conversations. This did not comply with the procedure given in Wright v. State, 38 Ala.App. 64 , 79 So. 2d 66 . However, we see no harm to the defendant because the substance of the recorded conversations had already come in through the testimony viva voce of Messrs. Love and Quinn. Moreover, we consider the jury could certainly have heard enough [though in a few places the recordings were scratchy and unequal in volume] to get from the recordings a fair cross section of their import.” 41 Ala.App. at 92-93 , 125 So. 2d at 723.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Flannagin v. State“"As to the admission of the evidence of the other payments after the proof of the first bribe, we see no harm to the defendant since the State itself chose to treat the $850 as one bribe rather than as eight. Lindsay got the best of the bargain in the State's merging the other seven instances into a single charge. "One exception to the rule in Mason v. State , 259 Ala. 438 , 66 So.2d 557 , 42 A.L.R.2d 847 , permits evidence of other crimes to show system. Had the State charged Lindsay with eight separate bribes, testimony of the other seven would have been relevant in order to negative illegal entrapment. See Brown v. State , 37 Ala. App. 516 , 74 So.2d 273 . Therefore, no harm comes from treating all eight payments as installments."”
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.