437 So. 2d 651 - Minor v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently November 2005
22 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 Neil v. Biggers · Townsend v. Sain · Solem v. Helm · 392 So. 2d 1274 - Watson v. State · 392 So. 2d 1280 - Sanders 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““There does not appear to be any law which requires that the name of the attorney appear at any particular place in the record so long as it properly appears that the defendant on trial was represented by an attorney.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"The factors to be considered when [a] question is presented with reference to . . . the validity of the identification are set out in [ Williamson v. State , 384 So.2d 1224 (Ala.Cr.App. 1980)]. These factors involve, in short, the opportunity of the victim to view the assailant at the time of the crime, the victim's degree of attention given to the defendant at the time, the accuracy of the victim's prior description, the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the time of the confrontation, and the length of time between the confrontation and the crime. A review of the evidence in this case, and applying these factors, leads us to the conclusion that there is nothing present in this case which would be sufficient to disallow the evidence of the identification of the accused in this case to go to the jury."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“"The true test of determining whether an extrajudicial confession is voluntary is whether the defendant's will was overborne at the time he confessed, making the confession the product of irrational intellect and not of a free will. Townsend v. Sain , 372 U.S. 293 , 83 S.Ct. 745 , 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963)." Minor , 437 So.2d 651 , 655 (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.