488 So. 2d 44 - Shubert v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently March 2016
9 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 Grant v. State · 380 So. 2d 940 - House v. State · State v. Murphy · 33 Ala. App. 328 - Scott v. State · Gooch 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"It is fundamental that an indictment 'must state the facts constituting the offense in ordinary and concise language, . . . in such a manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended and with that degree of certainty which will enable the court, on conviction, to pronounce the proper judgment.' Alabama Code 1975, § 15-8-25 . 'Indictments cannot be aided by intendment, but must positively and explicitly state what the prisoner is called upon to answer.' State v. Seay , 3 Stew. 123, 130-31 (Ala. 1830)."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Hall v. State · Hall v. State“"The proper form for an indictment for theft by deception under § 13A-8-3 is found in the Indictment and Warrant Manual prepared by the Alabama Law Institute and the Alabama Office of Prosecution Services at pp. 8-1 and 8-1(a). Although there are two alternative forms provided for a charge of theft by deception, each of those alternatives begins, 'A.B. did knowingly obtain, by deception, control over ( description of property ), . . .' Every indictment form for theft of property contains the same '(description of property)' requirement.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““ ‘ “A fatal variance exists between an indictment alleging the theft of ‘lawful currency’ and evidence showing the theft [of a check]. ‘[W]hen in this case the charge involved “currency” and the evidence established “[a check],” this was a fatal variance.’ ” ’”
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.