536 So. 2d 110 - Davis v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"[T]he appellant was returned to Alabama because of his voluntary waiver of extradition. In Siegel v. Edwards , 566 F.2d 958 , 959-60 (5th Cir. 1978), the court stated: "`Although the extradition papers of which appellant complains were never executed, appellant's return to Louisiana was not the result of those extradition papers. Appellant was returned to Louisiana because of his voluntary waiver of extradition. Once a fugitive has been brought within custody of the demanding state, legality of extradition is no longer proper subject of any legal attack by him.'"”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ex Parte Egbuonu · 804 So. 2d 247 - Hardy v. State

2. “"To be a capital offense, the murder of the intentional killing type must have been committed during the robbery in the first degree. `During' means in the course of or in connection with or immediate flight therefrom with the commission of robbery in the first degree. An accused is not guilty of a capital robbery murder where the intent to rob was formed only after the victim was killed. To sustain a conviction under the Alabama Statute for Capital Murder-Robbery, the State must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, a robbery of the first degree or an attempt thereof as I have just defined it, and intentional murder or killing as I have just defined it, and that the murder was committed during the robbery or attempted robbery and that the murder was committed in the course of or in connection with the commission of or the immediate flight from the commission of the robbery or the attempted robbery in the first degree. "The fact the victim is dead at the time the property is taken will not [militate against] the crime of robbery if the intervening time between the murder and the taking formed a continuous chain of events. So, the law is that the fact that the victim is dead at the time the property is taken would not prevent a jury from finding that a capital murder robbery had [been] committed if the intervening time between the murder and the taking formed a continuous chain of events. "Although a robbery committed as a mere afterthought, and unrelated to the murder will not su”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 548 So. 2d 526 - Hallford v. State

3. “[T]hus, even if the appellant took the victim's property when he was in 'immediate flight after the attempt or commission,' his actions were still embraced within the statutory scheme for murder committed during a robbery.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 562 So. 2d 586 - Siebert v. State