548 So. 2d 459 - Acres v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently February 2016 · most notably Ex Parte Bird (1991), 548 So. 2d 590 - Powell v. State (1988)
35 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 Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · Illinois v. Gates · Batson v. Kentucky · Aguilar v. Texas · Griffith v. Kentucky
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“" ' "The present robbery statutes, however, do not require a 'taking' of property, Marvin v. State , 407 So.2d 576 (Ala.Cr.App. 1981); Ala. Code §§ 13A-8-40 through 13A-8-44 (1975) (Commentary), so that not only is the value of the property immaterial, but also the indictment need not allege an actual theft to constitute the offense. The operative words of the current robbery statute are 'in the course of committing a theft,' which includes an attempted theft, Marvin v. State , supra, rather than the common law element of an actual 'taking from the person.' " ' "”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[h]is explanations deal only with probabilities[, the court] can only speculate as to his reasons, as he did”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Rule 10.1(a), Ala. R.Crim. P., states, '[T]he defendant shall be entitled to a change of the place of trial to the nearest county free from prejudice if a fair and impartial trial and unbiased verdict cannot be had for any reason.' The burden of proof is on the defendant 'to show to the reasonable satisfaction of the court that a fair and impartial trial and an unbiased verdict cannot be reasonably expected in the county in which the defendant is to be tried.' Rule 10.1(b). . . . ". . . . " ' "The determination of whether or not to grant a motion for change of venue is generally left to the sound discretion of the trial judge, because he has the best opportunity to assess any prejudicial publicity against the defendant and any prejudicial feeling against the defendant in the community which would make it difficult for the defendant to receive a fair and impartial trial.”
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.