486 So. 2d 1323 - Gillard v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 state decisions

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

1. “"The Alabama Legislature enacted the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act in 1978, adopting the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (Agreement). 1978 Ala. Acts 693, No. 590 (April 27, 1978); Ala. Code 1975, § 15-9-81 . Congress enacted the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act in 1970, joining the United States and the District of Columbia as parties to the Agreement. 18 U.S.C.A. App., §§ 1-2, page 585 (1985). The United States is a `state' for purposes of the Agreement. Agreement, Article II(a). At least forty-six states, including Alabama, are signatories. United States v. Mauro , 436 U.S. 340 , 98 S.Ct. 1834 , 56 L.Ed.2d 329 (1978); McCallum v. State , 407 So.2d 865 (Ala.Crim.App. 1981). The Agreement attempts to remedy the disadvantages and hardships imposed upon prisoners attendant to the use of detainers and to eliminate potential abuses of the detainer system. Article I. The agreement provides the prisoner with a method of clearing detainers lodged against *Page 36 him. It further provides cooperative proceedings for temporary transfers of prisoners for purposes of trial on outstanding charges among participating jurisdictions to aid such disposition. United States v. Dixon , 592 F.2d 329 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 951 , 99 S.Ct. 2179 , 60 L.Ed.2d 1056 (1979); Morning v. State , 416 So.2d 780 (Ala.Crim.App. 1982). In either case, the provisions of the Agreement are applicable only when a participating jurisdiction, having untried charges pending against”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Hill · 801 So. 2d 34 - Stephenson v. State

2. “It is the function of the parties and not of the court to formulate the issues.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 608 So. 2d 773 - Butler v. State · 513 So. 2d 38 - Whitson v. State

3. “"(a) Whenever a person has entered upon a term of imprisonment in a penal or correctional institution of a party state, and whenever during the continuance of the term of imprisonment there is pending in any other party state any untried indictment, information or complaint on the basis of which a detainer has been lodged against the prisoner, he shall be brought to trial within 180 days after he shall have caused to be delivered to the prosecuting officer and the appropriate court of the prosecuting officer's jurisdiction written notice of the place of his imprisonment and his request for a final disposition to be made of the indictment, information, or complaint; provided, that for good cause shown in open court, the prisoner or his counsel being present, the court having jurisdiction of the matter may grant any necessary or reasonable continuance. The request of the prisoner shall be accompanied by a certificate of the appropriate official having custody of the prisoner, stating the term of the commitment under which the prisoner is being held, the time already served, the time remaining to be served on the sentence, the amount of good time earned, the time of parole eligibility of the prisoner and any decision of the state parole agency relating to the prisoner.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 801 So. 2d 34 - Stephenson v. State