Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 42 Ala. App. 270 - Crook v. State

42 Ala. App. 270 - Crook v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1963

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
August 1981
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently August 1981

10 state decisions

40196319701980decided

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 Blue v. State · Johnson v. State · Crawford v. State · Spicer v. State · Myhand 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Eradication or removal of prejudicial matter ordinarily involves (a) what is before the court, and (b) if prejudicial the effect of any corrective action. “The requisites for such action are that it be sure, swift and certain: prompt, clear and forceful. Johnson v. State, 242 Ala. 278 , 5 So.2d 632 ; Myhand v. State, 259 Ala. 415 , 66 So.2d 544 . “We lay aside a consideration of the three instances of objected to argument as single items. C. “Cumulation to Prejudice “The leading authority for this principle (three strikes and out, see Lawson, J., dissenting in Myhand, supra) is the seldom applied case of Blue v. State, 246 Ala. 73 , 19 So.2d 11 . Under the reasoning there, argumentativeness in questioning may be weighed along with other conduct, e. g., verbal statements summing up for the State. Cf. Humphries v. State, 38 Ala.App. 388 , 84 So.2d 669. “Thus, in Humphries v. State, 'supra, though the trial judge in virtually every instance sustained objection and, at the more acutely disparaging efforts, charged the jurors to direct their minds away from the sway of passion and prejudice into the path of reason and relevance. Yet this was not enough to head off reversal.””
    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.