558 So. 2d 991 - Futral v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
December 2011
most recently cited
5 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 425 So. 2d 500 - Gwin v. State · 416 So. 2d 1083 - Walker v. State · 425 So. 2d 510 - Ex Parte Gwin · 57 Ala. App. 444 - Isbell v. State · Williams 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[I]f a witness’ testimony about a matter is adverse to the party who called the witness, it is proper for the trial court to permit such party, either for the purpose of proving such party’s surprise at such testimony or for the purpose of refreshing the recollection of the witness and thereby inducing the witness to change such testimony, to require of the witness whether he had previously made, and to elicit testimony from him that he has previously made, a specified statement about the matter different from his present testimony and of a tenor favorable to such calling party.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Flowers 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.