Davis v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently April 1987
8 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 Holland v. United States · Smith v. United States · United States v. Calderon · Friedberg v. United States · Sorrell 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * * * * “ ‘The fact of a person’s possession of money without some fairly reasonable indication that the money was acquired from a particular source is not provable for the purpose of showing that he acquired it from such particular source, because the inference of such acquisition is too weak. Turner v. State, 124 Ala. 59 , 27 So. 272 (larceny); Leath v. State, 132 Ala. 26 , 31 So. 108 (forgery; good opinion by Sharpe, J.). ‘But if facts of the amount, denomination, and other circumstances of such possession, reasonably indicate in the circumstances of the case that the money was acquired from a relevant particular source, evidence of such facts is admissible.’ ” Judge Cates, in the Davis opinion stated: “Under its burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt and to moral certainty, the State in relying on the possession of money, should at least by implication reasonably exclude the sale of property, the opportunity and credit standing to borrow and the likelihood of gifts, social insurance payments or inheritances. The burden of proof on the general issue never shifts to a defendant.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Although Moore was indicted and pled guilty to the same offense, this fact does not for Davis’s case make him out ipso facto an accomplice. Latham v. State, 38 Ala.App. 92 , 77 So.2d 499 .” 44 Ala.App. 684 , 220 So.2d 852 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Davis v. State““Nor do we think that there was error in denying Davis’s motion to exclude because of the lack of corroboration. Moore not being an accomplice, his testimony required no corroboration.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Davis 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.