Ringer v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently October 2009
17 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 Smith v. State · 392 So. 2d 1274 - Watson v. State · Stephens v. State · 398 So. 2d 369 - Stewart v. State · 51 Ala. App. 544 - Cassady 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"`Conviction of a felony is a necessary ingredient for the conviction of a person under § 13A-10-31 (a)(2) [escape in the first degree]. The legislature has clearly directed that this offense be punished as a class B felony. To adopt the interpretation suggested by the state would be always to punish this offense as a class A felony. Our analysis, therefore, tells us that this result is not the one intended by the legislature and that the felony conviction made an element of a conviction of § 13A-10-31 (a)(2), cannot lawfully be again used to enhance punishment for a conviction under that subsection.'"”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(a) A person commits the crime of escape in the first degree if: ". . . . . "(2) Having been convicted of a felony, he escapes or attempts to escape from custody imposed pursuant to that conviction.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““[N]ot every epithet of ‘snake’ will fatally poison the case. In Liner v. State, 350 So.2d 760, 763 (Ala.Cr.App.1977), Judge Bowen stated as follows: “ ‘In closing argument, the district attorney referred to the appellant as a “rattlesnake” and a “viper” who sucks the blood from the youth of our country before they can reach maturity. While this argument was highly improper, Cassady v. State, 51 Ala.App. 544 , 287 So.2d 254 (1973), it is not reversible error. The trial court sustained appellant’s objection to this type of argument and instructed the jury on what they were to consider. His motion for mistrial was overruled. As we noted in Cassady, supra, 51 Ala.App. at 547 , 287 So.2d at 257 : “ ‘ “Had appellant thought that more corrective measures were necessary, it was incumbent upon him to move the court to exclude this remark from the jury’s consideration. In the absence of such a motion, the question is not properly presented for revision. McGrew v. State, 21 Ala.App. 266 , 107 So. 328 ; Stephens v. State, 250 Ala. 123 , 33 So.2d 245 .” ’ “Prejudicial remarks made by counsel during the course of a trial must be judged in context, on their own merits, on a case by case basis. Smith v. State, 282 Ala. 268 , 210 So.2d 826 (1968).””
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.