Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 489 SO2D 675 - Ball v. State

Ball v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
November 2009
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently November 2009

10 state decisions

60198619902000decided

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 Wallace v. State · 435 So. 2d 158 - Smith v. State · 463 So. 2d 170 - Ex Parte Weems · Bush v. State · 380 So. 2d 351 - Chatman 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Even if ... comments to the defendant were improper, they were made after the defendant had already made her statement. Consequently, the defendant’s statement was not induced by or the result of the officer’s comments. Here, as in Rowe v. State, 421 So.2d 1352, 1355 (Ala.Cr.App.1982), ‘the confession was not the product of a direct or implied promise. The oral confession was completed at the time [the promise of] help was mentioned and therefore the offer could not have induced the confession.’ ””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “It is undisputed that the defendant intentionally fired his pistol either at or in the direction of another human being. His conduct excludes the possibility of negligent or inadvertent risk creation. There was simply no rational basis for a verdict of criminally negligent homicide.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “"[O]fficer Gant was not attempting to bargain with or promise the defendant anything. He was simply informing the defendant of the reality of the situation and that if he did not obtain more information different from that which he already had she would be arrested."”
    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.