555 So. 2d 802 - Quinlivan v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently September 2016
12 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 Hunter v. State · 397 So. 2d 199 - Parker v. State · Williams v. State · 398 So. 2d 780 - Wiggins v. State · Karr 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"I charge you, members of the jury, that if you believe from the evidence that the deceased at the time of his death was under the influence of alcohol, and that as a result of being under such influence, the deceased was aggressive, or belligerent, or quarrelsome, then you should consider such facts in determining whether or not the Defendant acted in self-defense in killing the deceased, as I have explained the law governing self-defense to you."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Malphurs v. State · Brown v. State“[a] defendant is permitted to demonstrate, under a theory of self-defense, that the victim was under the influence... at the time of the fatal altercation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The evidence at trial, both through the [defendant’s statement introduced by the prosecution, and through his own testimony, established the [defendant’s reliance on self-defense as a defense in this case. It was [the defendant’s] contention that just before the fatal shooting, the victim had threatened him and immediately thereafter had overtly menaced him with a knife, giving every indication that he fully intended to harm him with it. This court and the Alabama Supreme Court have uniformly held in numerous cases that the requested jury charge, no. 49 here, is required to be given under the fact situation presented. Williams v. State, 406 So.2d 1053 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 406 So.2d 1055 (Ala.1981); Wiggins v. State, 398 So.2d 780 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 398 So.2d 783 (Ala.1981); Nelson v. State, 397 So.2d 198 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied 397 So.2d 199 (Ala.1981); Ex parte Traweek, 380 So.2d 958 (Ala.1979); Hunter v. State, 295 Ala. 180 , 325 So.2d 921 (1975); Karr v. State, 100 Ala. 4 , 14 So. 851 (1893); Gilliam v. State, 50 Ala. 145 (1874).””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Mills v. State
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.