Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 469 SO2D 1326 - Nolen v. State

Nolen v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1985

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
2
states following
October 2000
most recently cited

14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently October 2000

14 state decisions

80198519902000decided

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 396 So. 2d 645 - Beck v. State · 362 So. 2d 1296 - Anderson v. State · Miles v. State · 375 So. 2d 1271 - Jackson v. State · 375 So. 2d 1257 - Williams 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The sufficiency of the proof of the predicate of unavailability of an absent witness is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"In Anderson v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 362 So.2d 1296 , this court stated the general rule regarding the use of former testimony, as follows: "`"Testimony of a witness, in a former trial or action, given (1) under oath, (2) before a tribunal or officer having by law the authority to take testimony and legally requiring an opportunity for cross-examination, (3) under circumstances affording the party against whom the witness was offered an opportunity to test his credibility by cross-examination and (4) given in a litigation in which the issues and parties were substantially the same as in the present cause, is receivable as evidence in the present trial (5) when the personal attendance of the witness to testify in the present trial is not feasible."` " Williams v. State, 375 So.2d 1257 , 1269 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 375 So.2d 1271 (Ala.1979). See also, C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence ง 245.07(1) (3rd ed. 1977)."”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “A sufficient predicate for a determination of unavailability is laid when the party offering the [former testimony] shows that it exercised due diligence in seeking the presence of the witness at the trial to no avail.”
    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.