445 So. 2d 573 - Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently September 2016
17 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 Armstrong v. State · 40 Ala. App. 587 - Fiorella v. State · 350 So. 2d 716 - Hill v. State · 415 So. 2d 1249 - Hollins v. State · 392 So. 2d 857 - Free 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"This court has previously held that a probation revocation hearing is not criminal in nature, and therefore neither formal procedures nor formal rules of evidence need be followed by the trial court. Armstrong , supra; Thompson v. State , 356 So.2d 757 (Ala.Cr.App. 1978); Goodrum v. State , 418 So.2d 942 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982). Stemming from this authority, it is clear that a 'mere arrest' or the filing of charges in themselves would be insufficient grounds for the revocation of probation. Free v. State , 392 So.2d 857 (Ala.Cr.App. 1980), writ denied , 392 So.2d 859 (Ala. 1981); Bullock v. State , 392 So.2d 848 (Ala.Cr.App. 1980), writ denied , 392 So.2d 852 (Ala. 1981); Hill v. State , 350 So.2d 716 (Ala.Cr.App. 1977). It is equally clear that no final conviction of a probationer on the offense charged is required before his probation may be revoked. Free v. State , supra; Fiorella v. State , 40 Ala. App. 587 , 121 So.2d 875 (1960); Dixon v. State , 42 Ala. App. 341 , 164 So.2d 509 (1964). All that is required of the trial judge in a probation revocation hearing is that the court be reasonably satisfied therefrom of the truth of the charge. Armstrong , supra; Goodrum , supra; Carter v. State , 389 So.2d 601 (Ala.Cr.App. 1980)."”
5 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.