562 So. 2d 657 - Lee v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently August 2010
18 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 McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Co. · Myers v. United States · Walker v. Illinois · Wright v. Illinois · 494 So. 2d 124 - Magwood 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"It is the law 'that an appellant who suffers an adverse ruling on a motion to exclude evidence (or other matters, e.g., argument of counsel), made in limine , preserves this adverse ruling for post-judgment and appellant review only if he objects to the introduction of the proffered evidence or other matters and assigns specific grounds therefor at the time of trial, unless he has obtained express acquiescence of the trial judge that such subsequent objection to evidence proffered at trial and assignment of grounds therefor are not necessary. See C. Gamble, The Motion in Limine: A Pretrial Procedure That Has Come of Age , 33 Ala.L.Rev. 1 (1981).' "”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“' Id. at 156. " 'In the instant case, counsel failed not only to object at trial to the references of which he now complains, but also failed to obtain the express acquiescence of the court that would make an objection at trial unnecessary. This issue is therefore not preserved for appellate review.' " " Lee v. State , 562 So.2d 657 , 665 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"'"`Gruesomeness becomes objectionable in a photograph only where there is a distortion of either of two kinds; first , distortion of the subject matter as where necroptic or other surgery causes exposure of nonprobative views, e.g., "massive mutilation," McKee v. State , 33 Ala. App. 171 , 31 So.2d 656 [1947]; or second , focal or prismatic distortion where the position of the camera vis-a-vis the scene or object to be shown gives an incongruous result, e.g., a magnification of a wound to eight times its true size, Wesley v. State , 32 Ala. App. 383 , 26 So.2d 413 [1946].'”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Duncan 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.