Ex Parte Frith’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
134 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 135 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably 533 So. 2d 701 - Molina v. State (1988), 600 So. 2d 374 - Burks v. State (1991)
134 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 382 So. 2d 528 - Zills v. Brown · Neal v. State · 494 So. 2d 891 - Murray v. State · State v. Holloway · 372 So. 2d 1348 - Neal 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 135 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The statement of specific grounds of objection waives all grounds not specified, and the trial court will not be put in error on grounds not assigned at trial.”
65 later decisions quote this exact passage“"`[A] properly authenticated business record is admissible in evidence when a foundation, as outlined in the Code, is laid by the proponent of the evidence. Section 12-21-43 requires that it be shown (1) that the record or writing was made as a memorandum or record of an act, transaction, occurrence, or event; (2) that the record was made in the regular course of business; and (3) that it was the regular course of business to make such a memorandum or record at the time of such act, transaction, occurrence, or event, or within a reasonable time thereafter. See also C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence , § 254.01(3) (3d ed. 1977).'"”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Giddens v. State · Dix v. State“"On cross-examination of Click, the State established the following: (1) that Click received various reports on Frith while he was at Bryce Hospital; (2) that the records used by Click were kept in the normal course of her business as a psychiatric social worker; (3) that she received a letter from a Dr. Thompson, a Bryce psychiatrist, that described Frith's mental condition at the time of the alleged rape; and (4) that Dr. Thompson was a staff psychiatrist at Bryce and had examined Frith on at least one occasion while he was at Bryce. The Court of Criminal Appeals erred in holding that the foregoing facts satisfied the foundational requirements of the Business Record Act. "First of all, Click never testified that the letter was made in the regular course of her business as a psychiatric social worker. Obviously, she could not have so testified, because the letter was authored by a third party — a Bryce psychiatrist, who was not associated with Click's `business' in any way. For the same reason, Click did not and could not have testified that it was the regular course of her business to write such a letter. . . . Only the Bryce psychiatrist who authored the letter or another representative of Bryce Hospital could have testified to those foundational facts."”
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.