503 So. 2d 871 - Thompson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

cited by 46 later decisions

states following

June 2015

most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 44 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently June 2015 · most notably Dill v. State (1991), 585 So. 2d 97 - Bankhead v. State (1990)

2 federal appellate · 44 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 Barclay v. Florida · Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Institution v. Hill · Duncan v. State · Baldwin v. Alabama · 396 So. 2d 645 - Beck 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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

“"It should be noted initially that `[t]he grant or denial of a mistrial is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court and will only be disturbed upon a showing of manifest abuse.' Durden v. State, 394 So.2d 967 (Ala.Crim.App.1980), cert. denied, 394 So.2d 977 (Ala.1981); Wright v. State, 421 So.2d 1324 (Ala. Crim.App.1982); Shadle v. State, 280 Ala. 379 , 194 So.2d 538 (1967); Davis v. State, 457 So.2d 992 (Ala.Crim.App.1984). `The entry of a mistrial is not lightly to be undertaken. It should be only a last resort, as in cases of otherwise ineradicable prejudice. Where error is eradicable a mistrial is too drastic and is properly denied. Chillous v. State, 405 So.2d 58 (Ala.Crim.App.1981); Van Antwerp v. State, 358 So.2d 782 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 358 So.2d 791 (Ala.1978); Thomas v. Ware, 44 Ala.App. 157 , 204 So.2d 501 (1967).' Woods v. State, 460 So.2d 291, 296 (Ala.Crim.App.1984)."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Chambers v. State · Ex Parte Sparks
“' "It is clear to this court that the report is entirely consistent with Alabama's capital murder statute regarding evidence to be considered in sentencing. Section 13A-5-45 (b), Code states, '[a]ny evidence which has probative value and is relevant to sentence shall be received at the sentence hearing regardless of its admissibility under the exclusionary rules of evidence, provided the defendant is accorded a fair opportunity to rebut any hearsay statements.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Stewart v. State · 612 So. 2d 520 - Hart v. State
“`The determination of the prejudicial character of improper conduct and comments of a trial judge in most cases depends on the issues, parties, and general circumstances of each case.' Thompson v. State, 503 So.2d 871, 879 (Ala.Cr.App.1986), aff'd, 503 So.2d 887 (Ala.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 872 , 108 S.Ct. 204 , 98 L.Ed.2d 155 ... (1987). However, in any case, the trial `court should”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 766 So. 2d 860 - Thomas v. State · 549 So. 2d 989 - Parker 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.