469 So. 2d 683 - Young v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently May 2007
11 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 McNabb v. United States · Fikes v. State of Alabama · Williamson v. United States · Fletcher v. State · United States v. Gray
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A reversal of a conviction because of the trial court's refusal to grant a continuance requires 'a positive demonstration of abuse of judicial discretion.' " Young v. State , 469 So.2d 683 , 687 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985). That above rule "clearly applies to cases where the continuance is sought due to an absent witness.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“`Further, a plea of not guilty is not repugnant to the defense of entrapment.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"In deciding whether the trial court should have granted a continuance in order to procure the attendance of the absent defense witnesses, it should be noted initially that a continuance in a criminal case is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, the exercise of which will not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly abused. Fletcher v. State , 291 Ala. 67 , 277 So.2d 882 (1973); King v. State , 435 So.2d 769 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983); Pritchett v. State , 445 So.2d 984 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984). The above-stated rule clearly applies to cases where the continuance is sought due to an absent witness. Bailey v. State , 398 So.2d 406 (Ala.Cr.App. 1981); Weaver v. State , 401 So.2d 344 (Ala.Cr.App. 1981); Pritchett , supra."”
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.