Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 429 SO2D 1185 - Holsclaw v. State

Holsclaw v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
November 1987
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 8 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Blackledge v. Allison · Johnson v. Williams · Taylor v. State of Alabama · 366 So. 2d 336 - Summers v. State · Miles 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"In considering a petition for writ of error coram nobis, a court may and should determine the `reasonableness of the allegations made in the petition and the probability or improbability of their truth.' [Citations omitted.] A court is not bound to accept at face value the allegations of the petition. [Citation omitted.]"”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““The only issue raised on direct appeal dealt with the Habitual Felony Offender Act. [Citation omitted.] After the opinion of this court was issued, different appellate counsel was appointed for the petitioner. On rehearing, that counsel raised the insufficiency of the evidence and the improper waiver of a jury trial. In brief on appeal of the denial of the petition for writ of error coram nobis, appellate counsel states, ‘The issue relative to the denial of a jury trial did not raise the same issue that is being raised on this petition.’ Because the alleged fraud was known to the petitioner when the trial judge found him guilty, it constitutes newly disclosed evidence rather than newly discovered evidence. (Emphasis in original.)” Holsclaw v. State, 429 So.2d 1185, 1188 (Ala.Cr.App.1983).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““Petitioner alleges that he is entitled to a new trial because he waived his right to a trial by jury based on the false representation of appointed counsel that if the case were tried without a jury the judge would ‘throw out’ the case for insufficient evidence.” Holsclaw v. State, 429 So.2d 1185, 1186 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983).”
    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.