497 So. 2d 1135 - Varner v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently July 2017
20 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 Democratic Party of the United States v. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette · Mitchell v. Moore · 456 So. 2d 357 - Ex Parte Clare · 44 Ala. App. 491 - Maples v. State · 383 So. 2d 579 - Tucker 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"When a defendant is convicted of a criminal activity or conduct which has resulted in pecuniary damages or loss to a victim, the court shall hold a hearing to determine the amount or type of restitution due the victim or victims of such defendant's criminal acts. Such restitution hearings shall be held as a matter of course and in addition to any other sentence which it may impose, the court shall order that the defendant make restitution or otherwise compensate such victim for any pecuniary damages. The defendant, the victim or victims, or their representatives or the administrator of any victim's estate as well as the district attorney shall have the right to be present and be heard upon the issue of restitution at any such hearings."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Generally, the proponent of a witness may not bolster the credibility of a witness by showing that he made similar statements on prior occasions. Macum [ Marcum ] v. State, 39 Ala.App. 616 , 107 So.2d 899 (Ala.Cr.App.1958)."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"As a general rule, the impeachment of a witness by the introduction of evidence that the witness has made a statement which is inconsistent with the witness' testimony does not authorize the proponent of the witness to support credibility by evidence that the witness has made a statement on another occasion of the same tenor as the witness' present testimony. This is true whether or not the witness is a party, whether or not the witness admitted the making of the prior inconsistent statement, whether the witness denied making such statement and testimony that the witness made it come from the mouths of another witness and whether or not the prior consistent statement was made before or after the time of the claimed inconsistent statement."”
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.