435 So. 2d 177 - Chesson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently August 2001
14 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 Town of Mashpee v. Mashpee Tribe · Texas v. Certain Named & Unnamed Undocumented Alien Children · Dunn v. State · 414 So. 2d 993 - Ex Parte Allen · Elrod 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Where the relevancy is not apparent in the question itself, the trial court will not be put in error for sustaining an objection unless the relevancy is made to appear. Alberson v. State , 254 Ala. 87 , 91 , 47 So.2d 182 (1950). 'When error is predicated upon an exception to the ruling of the trial court in sustaining an opposing party's objection to questions propounded to a witness, error cannot be incurred, unless the trial court was made aware of what testimony the question was expected to elicit and unless it further appears that it was material to the issues in the case.' Chesson v. State , 435 So.2d 177 , 179 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983); Coburn v. State , 424 So.2d 665 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982)." (Emphasis in Chesson . )”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““ ‘Because appellant’s objection was sustained by the trial court and the jury instructed to disregard the answer, there was no reversible error. [Citation omitted.] After the appellant’s objection was sustained, his counsel requested no further curative action. There was therefore, no adverse ruling of which to complain here on appeal.’ Chesson v. State, 435 So.2d 177 (Ala.Crim.App.1983).””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The general rule in Alabama is that the invocation and enforcement of the rule of exclusion of witnesses is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court and is not normally subject to appellate review.”
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.