462 So. 2d 955 - Alexander v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently August 2001
8 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 Strickland v. Washington · Boykin v. Alabama · Sanders v. United States · McDonald v. United States · 42 Ala. App. 9 - Allen 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"It is a well-settled rule that matters adjudicated in a hearing on a petition for writ of error coram nobis are considered 'quasi res judicata'; in other words, repeated applications or petitions merely resting on the same allegations which have been previously adjudicated should not be entertained. See McCray v. State , 282 Ala. 315 , 211 So.2d 450 (1968); Bies v. State , 418 So.2d 940 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982); Allen v. State , 42 Ala. App. 9 , 150 So.2d 399 , cert. denied , 275 Ala. 691 , 152 So.2d 439 , cert. denied , 374 U.S. 854 , 83 S.Ct. 1922 , 10 L.Ed.2d 1074 (1963). The doctrine of res judicata bars reconsideration of an issue if four elements are present: (1) a prior judgment rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) substantial identity of the parties; (3) identity of the issues; and (4) prior judgment rendered on the merits. See Ozley v. Guthrie , 372 So.2d 860 (Ala. 1979). Hence, the provision that the trial court need not entertain a second or successive petition presupposes adequate consideration of the merits of the first petition; if the judgment rendered is not on the merits, the defense of res judicata fails." Alexander v. State , 462 So.2d 955 , 956-57 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The writ of error coram nobis does not provide a review by appeal where the complaining party has not sought an appeal and the time for an appeal has long since expired. Corley v. State , 397 So.2d 223 (Ala.Crim.App. 1981); Kilgore v. State , 342 So.2d 947 (Ala.Crim.App. 1977).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Glover v. State“[t]he court made a factual finding that the allegations in the present petition are the same as those raised in a [prior] petition for a writ of error coram nobis.”
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.