Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 469 So. 2d 707 - Loper v. State

469 So. 2d 707 - Loper v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1985

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
1
states following
July 2015
most recently cited

28 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently July 2015 · most notably Henderson v. State (1990), 717 So. 2d 30 - Hayes v. State (1997)

28 state decisions

1101985199020002010decided

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 Douglas v. Alabama · United States v. Mitchell · Fikes v. State of Alabama · Fikes v. State · 53 Ala. App. 377 - Ex Parte White

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

  1. ““ ‘The question of intent is hardly ever capable of direct proof. Such questions are normally questions for the jury. McMurphy v. State, 455 So.2d 924 (Ala.Crim.App.1984); Craig v. State, 410 So.2d 449 (Ala.Crim.App.1981), cert. denied, 410 So.2d 449 (Ala.1982).’ Loper v. State, 469 So.2d 707, 710 (Ala.Cr.App.1985).””
    12 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “'(f) promises performance which the defendant does not intend to perform or knows will not be performed. Failure to perform, standing alone, however, is not proof that the defendant did not intend to perform.'”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “"To make out a case for violation of the Code of Alabama 1975, § 13A-8-3 and § 13A-8-2 , theft by deception in the first degree, the state was required to prove three things: 1) that the appellant knowingly obtained the property of [Mrs. Sanderson]; 2) that the appellant obtained [Mrs. Sanderson's] property by deception; and 3) that the appellant intended to deprive [Mrs. Sanderson] of [her] property. Loper v. State , 469 So.2d 707 , 710 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985)."”
    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.