526 So. 2d 654 - Gulledge v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently November 2011
10 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 Southern Railway Co. v. North Carolina · Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. · 368 So. 2d 871 - Cumbo v. State · Skelton v. City of Birmingham · United States v. Bentvena
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A trial court does not commit error in trying a defendant in his absence where that defendant knows the date of the trial and simply fails to appear, and there is no evidence suggesting that the defendant was involuntarily absent. United States v. Schocket, 753 F.2d 336, 339-340 (4th Cir.1985). ‘A defendant may not unilaterally set the time or circumstances of his trial, see United States v. Bentvena, 319 F.2d 916 (2d Cir.), sub nom. Ormento v. United States, 375 U.S. 940 , 84 S.Ct. 345 , 11 L.Ed.2d 271 (1963); rather, the defendant bears the burden of justifying his absence from a known proceeding against him.’ United States v. Sanchez, 790 F.2d 245, 249 (2d Cir.1986) (emphasis in [Sanchez]). An acknowledgement from defense counsel that there is no evidence of the whereabouts of his client may support the conclusion of the trial judge that the accused has willfully absented himself without a reason. Sanchez, 790 F.2d at 250 . See generally 21A Am.Jur.2d Criminal Law §§ 698-699 (1981).””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“`Testimony which may be apparently illegal upon admission may be rendered prejudicially innocuous by subsequent or prior lawful testimony to the same effect or from which the same facts can be inferred.'”
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.