51 Ala. App. 405 - Martin v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

32 state decisions

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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"It is our opinion that the possessive or manucaptive element essential in robbery was present in this case. From the moment that these defendants and Lewis entered his automobile these appellants only were in full control and possession thereof. True, Lewis was present at all times. However, his status was that of a robot. His dominion over the automobile was completely negatived by the will and pistols of the appellants. It is our opinion that the facts of this case spell out what on the part of the appellants there was a felonious taking of property from the person of another, or in his presence, against his will, by violence or putting in fear. The fact that the owner was carried along against his will when the property was taken is incidental and should not affect the decision."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bascom v. State · 398 So. 2d 787 - Wilson v. State

2. “number of law-enforcement officers to be seated in the courtroom was not an abuse of the trial court's discretion. No plain error occurred in this regard. VI. The appellant argues that the trial court committed reversible error in allowing the State, during the sentencing phase, to use a trial aid listing all eight statutory aggravating factors enumerated in § 13A-5-49 , Ala. Code 1975. For the first time, on appeal, he argues that the prosecutor's comment in his opening statement to the jury, during the sentencing phase, that evidence would be presented as to”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 861 So. 2d 1111 - Centobie v. State

3. ““A prisoner undergoing trial should not be in irons, shackled, manacled, or otherwise fettered unless the situation creates a reasonable belief that such restraint is necessary to prevent his escape or rescue. This principle is deeply rooted in the ancient common law and was noted by Sir William Blackstone, 4th Com. 322, where he said, ‘The prisoner must be brought to the bar without irons, or any manner of shackles or bonds, unless there be evident danger of escape, and then he may be secured with irons.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Keeby v. State