Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 46 Ala. App. 283 - DeFranze v. State

46 Ala. App. 283 - DeFranze v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1970

Citation profile

38
cited by 38 later decisions
1
states following
June 1995
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 36 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently June 1995 · most notably 52 Ala. App. 265 - Goodman v. State (1974), 369 So. 2d 863 - Weatherford v. State (1979)

2 federal appellate · 36 state decisions

260197019801990decided

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 Kimbrough v. United States · Cobern v. State · Parsons v. State · 21 Ala. App. 289 - Douglass v. State · 39 Ala. App. 29 - Beddow 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““ * * * The exclusion of witnesses from the courtroom is entirely a matter of discretion with the trial court, and not of right.. * * * This discretion is not reviewable. * * * ””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““At the close of the State’s case, the defense, out of the presence of the jury, made a motion to exclude the State’s evidence based on this alleged variance and the court recalled Mrs. Harris to clarify the point. The following occurred: “ ‘Q. Do you recall definitely whether you told the Grand Jury thé exact denominations of this money? “ ‘A At the Grand Jury I said I thought it was a twenty, a ten, and three ones.’ (Emphasis added.) (Next is the quoted proposition from Young and James) “The question is not whether Mrs. Harris knew the exact denominations of the bills, but whether she so informed the grand jury. We are not prepared to hold on this record that the grand jury is fact knew the exact denominations of the money taken.””
    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.