Ringer v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently June 2013
22 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 South Dakota v. Opperman · Shadle v. State · United States v. Bosby · 386 So. 2d 1180 - Tice v. State · Evers 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"A trial judge is in the best position to determine whether the prejudicial effects of an improper question can be eradicated by instruction to the jury. His determination of this matter should be accorded great deference. Retowsky v. State , 333 So.2d 193 (Ala.Crim.App. 1976). Pickett v. State , 417 So.2d 589 (Ala.Crim.App. 1982); Wysinger v. State , 448 So.2d 435 (Ala.Crim.App. 1983). There is a prima facie presumption against error when a trial judge immediately instructs the jury to disregard an improper question or remark. Mallory v. State , 437 So.2d 595 (Ala.Crim.App. 1983); Kelley v. State , 405 So.2d 728 (Ala.Crim.App.), writ denied, 405 So.2d 731 (Ala. 1981)."”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“"It is unnecessary for a witness to be an expert or a dealer in a particular article in order to testify as to that article's value if he has had the opportunity to form a correct opinion as to its value. Sales v. State , 435 So.2d 242 (Ala.Crim.App. 1983); Lankford v. State , 396 So.2d 1099 (Ala.Crim.App. 1981). Whether a witness has had an opportunity to form a correct opinion as to the value of an article is a question for the trial judge, [whose decision] will not be disturbed on appeal, absent an abuse of discretion. Daniel v. State , 439 So.2d 206 (Ala.Crim.App. 1983), Tice v. State , 386 So.2d 1180 (Ala.Crim.App.), writ denied, 386 So.2d 1187 (Ala. 1980)."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Any police officer is hereby authorized to remove or cause to be removed to the nearest garage or other place of safety any vehicle found upon a highway when ... the person driving or in control of such vehicle is arrested for an alleged offense for which the officer is required by law to take the person arrested before a proper magistrate without unnecessary delay....””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. T.L.S. v. State
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.