461 So. 2d 899 - Ballard v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently April 2000
15 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 United States v. Matlock · Amperex Electronic Corp. v. New York Racing Assn., Inc. · Babich v. United States · Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co. · Daniels 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"It is well recognized that some third parties may validly consent to a search of premises or the effects of an absent defendant, if such third party shares with the defendant 'common authority over or other sufficient relationship to the premises or effect sought to be inspected.' United States v. Matlock , 415 U.S. 164 , 94 S.Ct. 988 , 39 L.Ed.2d 242 (1974); Myers v. State , 55 Ala. App. 404 , 316 So.2d 235 (1975); Scott [v. State] , 337 So.2d 1342 (Ala.Cr.App. 1976)."”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“"It should be noted initially that a determination of admissibility of evidence rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing of an abuse of discretion. United States v. Dothard , 666 F.2d 498 (11th Cir. 1982); United States v. Penn , 721 F.2d 762 (11th Cir. 1983); Ward v, State , 440 So.2d 1227 (Ala.Crim.App. 1983). 'To be admissible, the proffered evidence must tend to prove or disprove the main inquiry of the case.' Hill v. State , 366 So.2d 296 (Ala.Crim.App. 1978), affirmed, 366 So.2d 318 (Ala. 1979); McLeod v. State , 383 So.2d 207 (Ala.Crim.App. 1980). This court has further held that the determination of relevancy of evidence is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge and this court will not reverse unless discretion has been grossly abused."”
2 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.