Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 485 So. 2d 1238 - Stringfellow v. State

485 So. 2d 1238 - Stringfellow v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

42
cited by 42 later decisions
2
states following
July 2017
most recently cited

42 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently July 2017 · most notably 629 So. 2d 14 - State v. Tarver (1993), 805 So. 2d 763 - Ex Parte Dobyne (2001)

42 state decisions

2201986199020002010decided

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 · Engle v. Isaac · Michel v. State of Louisiana Poret · Mansion House Center South Redevelopment Co. v. United States · Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Weintraub

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

  1. “[E]ffectiveness of counsel does not lend itself to measurement by picking through the transcript and counting the places where objections might be made.”
    20 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within a wide range of reasonable professional assistance.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “"It is true that, 'in the process of selecting the jury from the venire afforded, each party has the right to have questions formulated by it propounded to the jury, either by the court or by the party as the court may determine, if such questions reasonably relate under the circumstances to the question of the qualification or interest or bias on the part of prospective jurors.' Griffin v. State , 383 So.2d 873 , 876 (Ala.Cr.App. 1980); see also, Alabama Power Co. v. Bonner , 459 So.2d 827 (Ala. 1984). It is equally clear, however, that the trial court has broad discretion in determining how the voir dire examination of a jury will be conducted. Robinson v. State , 430 So.2d 883 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983); Witherspoon v. State , 356 So.2d 743 (Ala.Cr.App. 1978). Where the procedure employed by the trial judge is sufficient to uncover possible prejudice or bias of a juror, the right of a party to have its questions propounded to the jury is not infringed upon. United States v. Brooks , 670 F.2d 148 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1124 , 102 S.Ct. 2943 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1339 (1982)."”
    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.