516 So. 2d 797 - Ex Parte Tomlin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “doctrine for two reasons: 1) the objectionable matter was not in the record originally, and 2) in this case, the error was not unduly prejudicial. Rule 45, Ala.R. App.P. ON THIRD APPLICATION FOR REHEARING PER CURIAM. APPLICATION OVERRULED; OPINION MODIFIED. TORBERT, C.J., and JONES, SHORES, BEATTY, ADAMS and HOUSTON, JJ., concur. MADDOX and STEAGALL, JJ., dissent. MADDOX, Justice (dissenting). On application for rehearing, the State asks this Court to modify its opinion with respect to the standard for determining”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ex Parte Tomlin

2. “The 1975 capital punishment statute, as contained in §§ 13-11-1 through 13-11-9, was carried over intact to the new criminal code as §§ 13A-5-30 through 13A-5-38. These sections of the new criminal code were repealed, effective July 1, 1981, by the 1981 capital offense statute, but only as to conduct occurring on or after July 1, 1981. Therefore, conduct occurring before July 1, 1981, as in the present case, is governed by the pre-existing law, i.e., §§ 13A-5-30 through 13A-5-38.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 591 So. 2d 550 - Tomlin v. State