State v. Alaniz’s Empirical Analysis
1951
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 62 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently February 2007 · most notably McCauley v. Ray (1968), State v. Lindsey (1969)
2 federal appellate · 62 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 State v. Kidd · Byrd v. State · 25 Ala. App. 209 - Higdon v. State · Griffith v. Commonwealth · Latimer 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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(“The court doesn’t feel that these men cannot get a fair trial in Lincoln County. On the other hand, he thinks they can get a fair trial as they can get in any county. The Court is somewhat familiar with the people in Lincoln County, having dealt with them six or seven years, and as far as the influence of the Nalda family, they have quite a bit of influence in one portion of the county, around Corona, but Capitan, Picacho, San Patricio, Green Tree, Ruidoso, there I would say that half of the people never heard of the Nalda family. I am going to overrule the motion.”)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Montoya · State v. House““Applications for change of venue under our law, Section 19-503, Compilation of 1941 [which section is in pertinent part substantially the same as our present statute § 21-5-3, supra], are predicated on a well-grounded ‘fear’ that he is unlikely to obtain a fair trial and an impartial jury, in the county where the claimed crime occurred. We do not understand the statute to mean that it must be conclusively shown that it is impossible to have a fair trial in the county where the venue is laid, but it is sufficient to show a reasonable apprehension that the defendant' will not secure a fair and impartial trial or' that the jury are-under an influence inimical to the accused.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. House · McCauley v. Ray
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.