Mathis v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
5
cited by 5 later decisions
2
states following
May 2004
most recently cited
5 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 435 So. 2d 1371 - Crowe v. State · 455 So. 2d 137 - Free v. State · 20 Ala. App. 28 - Gilbert v. State · 381 So. 2d 1057 - Wade v. State · Ex Parte Wade
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The concept may serve a useful purpose in the tort field but has no proper place in criminal law. [Transferred intent] is obviously only a fiction, or a legal conclusion, to accomplish the desired result of liability.... [I]n the field of crime this concept has the vice of being a misleading half-truth, often given as an improper reason for a correct result ....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Carter v. State“"However, the doctrine has no application to specific intent crimes such as our former offense of assault with intent to murder, see Coleman v. State , 373 So.2d 1254 (Ala.Cr.App. 1979), and our present offense of attempted murder, see Free v. State , 455 So.2d 137 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 455 So.2d 137 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984)."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Cockrell v. State“[n]ot only is intent transferred, but also the degree of the crime and any defenses that would be valid if the intended victim had been hit,”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Carter 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.