415 So. 2d 1232 - McLeod v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently July 2004
2 federal appellate · 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 Echols v. State · 406 So. 2d 439 - Ellison v. State · 44 Ala. App. 281 - Rickard 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.
“"Appellant's coram nobis petition reasserts the same issues presented in March, 1980, along with a further allegation that, at the time of his guilty pleas, his court-appointed counsel was ineffective because he had had a conflict of interest as a part-time city prosecutor or city judge. "Former Supreme Court Rule 50, which has now been superseded by the Rules of Appellate Procedure, provided the following: "`. . . And the sentencing court shall not be required to entertain a second or successive petition for similar relief on behalf of the same prisoner. A successive petition on different grounds will not be entertained unless good cause is shown why the new ground or grounds were not known or could not have been reasonably ascertained when the first petition was heard.' "(Quoted in Rickard v. State , 44 Ala. App. 281 , 207 So.2d 422 (1968)). Although former Rule 50 is no longer the law, the policy underlying it is still valid. If a petitioner may not assert as grounds for a coram nobis petition facts he knows or should have known at trial, see Echols v. State , 276 Ala. 489 , 164 So.2d 486 (1964), certainly he may not allege, in a second coram nobis petition, facts he knew or should have known at the time of filing a first petition for post-conviction relief. "Appellant's coram nobis petition affirmatively shows that, prior to the March 17, 1980 hearing, he knew of his attorney's part-time city judge status. Appellant's own testimony during the hearing indicates that his at”
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.