46 So. 3d 888 - Ex Parte Ward’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

31 state decisions

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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “" Rule 32.7(d), Ala. R.Crim. P., allows the trial court to summarily dismiss a Rule 32 petition that, on its face, is precluded or fails to state a claim, and we have held that the trial court may properly summarily dismiss such a petition without waiting for a response to the petition from the State. Bishop v. State , 608 So.2d 345 , 347-48 (Ala.1992) ('''Where a simple reading of a petition for post-conviction relief shows that, assuming every allegation of the petition to be true, it is obviously without merit or is precluded, the circuit court [may] summarily dismiss that petition without requiring a response from the district attorney.'''). Although the Rules of Criminal Procedure initially place the burden on the State to plead any ground of preclusion, the ultimate burden is on the petitioner to disprove that a ground of preclusion applies. Rule 32.3, Ala. R.Crim. P."”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Hurst · Ward v. State

2. “that in determining whether equitable tolling is applicable, consideration must be given as ' "to whether principles of 'equity would make the rigid application of a limitation period unfair' ....”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. K.L.R. v. K.G.S. · 264 So. 3d 65 - K.L.R. v. K.G.S.

3. ““The dispositive issue before us is whether the Court of Criminal Appeals correctly held that the doctrine of equitable tolling is not available to Ward because he failed to assert it in the Rule 32 petition filed by previous counsel on November 2, 2005, before we released our opinion in Ward III on June 1, 2007, in which we recognized as a matter of first impression the availability of equitable tolling to a Rule 32 petitioner. In light of the fact that the doctrine of equitable tolling is a newly recognized exception to the limitations provision of Rule 32.2(c), that it was Ward who argued successfully before this Court that the doctrine should be adopted, and that this is a capital case, we hold that Ward should have the opportunity to assert the doctrine of equitable tolling.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Ward v. State