Eldridge v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
July 1974
most recently cited
4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Gideon v. Wainwright · Patton v. State of North Carolina · Ex Parte Tanner · 42 Ala. App. 498 - Isbell v. State · 38 Ala. App. 117 - Ex Parte Jenkins
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.
““ * * * Under Code 1940, T. 45, § 32, as amended, words of concurrency must be explicit and probably must set out the other sentence by an exact description. Glisson v. State, 281 Ala. 187 , 200 So.2d 498 . “Only the judgment (not a prison record notation) can prove or disprove concurrency. This, because the statute, § 32, supra, is the only authority for concurrency, and it requires that concurrency be recorded in the judgment entry itself. Crook v. State, 44 Ala.App. 83 , 203 So.2d 138 (hn. 3).””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Isbell v. State
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.