457 So. 2d 992 - Davis v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

cited by 18 later decisions

states following

August 2004

most recently cited

18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently August 2004

18 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 Freeman v. Hall · 416 So. 2d 1083 - Walker v. State · 50 Ala. App. 200 - Dunaway v. State · 50 Ala. App. 318 - Smithson v. State · 415 So. 2d 1249 - Hollins 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

“'The prejudicial effect of communications between jurors and others, especially in a criminal case, determines the reversible character of the error. Whether there has been a communication with the juror, and whether it has caused prejudice are fact questions to be determined by the Court in the exercise of sound discretion. . . . His ruling and determination will not be disturbed in the absence of a showing of abuse of discretion.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 648 So. 2d 629 - Johnson v. State · 740 So. 2d 444 - Mangione v. State
“"Whether or not to grant a mistrial is a matter within the discretion of the trial court. Walker v. State , 416 So.2d 1083 (Ala.Crim.App. 1982); Wood v. State , 416 So.2d 794 (Ala.Crim.App. 1982); Bowman v. State , 401 So.2d 333 (Ala.Crim.App. 1981); Edgeworth v. State , 304 So.2d 911 , 54 Ala. App. 93 (Ala.Crim.App. 1974). A trial court will not be reversed for denying a motion for mistrial unless a clear abuse of discretion is shown."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 542 So. 2d 292 - Anderson v. State · 500 So. 2d 69 - Johnson v. State
“There is a prima facie presumption that where two names are identical that those names refer to the same person.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 492 So. 2d 638 - Smith v. State · 581 So. 2d 541 - Dysart 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.