Self v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently April 2002
4 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 Roviaro v. United States · Sibron v. State of New York Peters · Scott Paper Co. v. McAllister Lighterage Line, Inc. · Knight v. State · United States v. Mendez-Rodriguez
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Since Roviaro v. United States , 353 U.S. 53 , 77 S.Ct. 623 , 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957), it is clear that the general rule of nondisclosure of witnesses is not always applicable to the government informant. In cases involving the `tipster' type of informant, who merely conveys information to the government but neither witnesses nor participates in the offense, courts generally hold that the disclosure of his identity is not material and, therefore, not required."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Merely lifting language from an appellate opinion does not insure its acceptability as a correct instruction to the jury. Tate v. State, [ 337 So.2d 13 (Ala.Cr. App.) ] (1976); Knight v. State, 273 Ala. 480 , 142 So.2d 899 (1962); Lakey v. State, 258 Ala. 116 , 61 So.2d 117 (1952). Each charge must be considered in light of the evidence in the case in which it is requested." Self v. State, 420 So.2d 792, 797 (Ala.Cr.App.1981) rev'd on other grounds, 420 So.2d 798 (Ala.1982), on remand, aff'd, 420 So.2d 803 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“of the State.' Presumably then, the majority finds that the State was `negligent' in failing to prevent Gates from leaving the jurisdiction prior to appellant's trial, notwithstanding the fact that the majority concedes `Alabama does not have a statutory provision which gives the State authority to detain material witnesses.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.