46 So. 3d 898 - Ex Parte Ward’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““the dispositive issue before [the Supreme Court was] 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.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ward v. State · 75 So. 3d 622 - Fidel Martinez v. State of Alabama.

2. ““In the instant case, Patrick asserted in his Rule 32 petition that the doctrine of equitable tolling should apply in his ease. Patrick alleged that his appellate counsel, Pennington, had advised him that he would file a Rule 32 petition on Patrick’s behalf in the Washington Circuit Court and that he would send Patrick a copy of the Rule 32 petition once it had been filed. Patrick alleged that he never received a copy of. the Rule 32 petition. Patrick stated that he tried, to no avail, to contact Pennington to inquire about the status of his Rule 32 petition. Patrick further represented that his wife, who attempted to contact Pennington after her husband’s failed attempts, was able to contact Pennington only to be falsely informed that a Rule 32 petition had been filed on Patrick’s behalf. Patrick alleged that after he did not receive a copy of the Rule 32 petition as requested, he and his wife attempted to contact Pennington using various forms of communication. Finally, Patrick’s wife contacted the Washington Circuit Court clerk’s office and learned that no Rule 32 petition had been filed on Patrick’s behalf. Patrick subsequently filed a formal complaint with [the] Alabama State Bar. The State Bar concluded in a letter attached as an exhibit to Patrick’s Rule 32 petition that formal charges should be filed against Pennington. “The facts as alleged by Patrick in his Rule 32 petition and ‘Motion for Enlargement’ demonstrate ‘extraordinary circumstances justifying the applicat”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ward v. State

3. ““In Ex parte Martinez, 75 So.3d 616 (Ala.2009), we held that a defendant whose petition for a writ of certiorari was pending when we decided [Ex parte Ward, 46 So.3d 888 (Ala.2007) (Ward IIP),] was entitled to assert the doctrine of equitable tolling as it related to his Rule 32 petition. We stated: “ While Martinez’s certiorari petition was pending, this Court issued its opinion in [Ward III], Martinez did not have the benefit of Ward [III ] to afford him the opportunity to argue the equitable tolling of the limitations period. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals and remand the case to that court for consideration of Martinez’s claim that he is entitled to the remedy afforded by the doctrine of equitable tolling and, if it decides that he is, whether the trial court was correct in denying Martinez’s petition.’ “Martinez, 75 So.3d at 621 . A review of our summary in Martinez of the claims Martinez argued in his Rule 32 petition reflects that the only claim that could arguably be said to assert the doctrine of equitable tolling was a claim that the limitations period of Rule 32.2(c) should not apply in his case ‘because, he says, as a native of Guatemala who does not speak English, he faced significant obstacles in pursuing postconviction review.’ 75 So.3d at 617 . Martinez was entitled to assert the newly recognized doctrine of equitable tolling on remand; likewise, Ward is entitled to assert the doctrine, which was adopted in his case.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 75 So. 3d 622 - Fidel Martinez v. State of Alabama.