57 Ala. App. 444 - Isbell v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
50 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently August 2008 · most notably 475 So. 2d 609 - Ex Parte Bell (1985), 431 So. 2d 586 - Miller v. State (1983)
50 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 Southern Railway Company v. Maggie Gray L · 43 Ala. App. 454 - Leonard v. State · Booker v. State · Manning v. State · Milam 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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In the absence of a showing that he knew the guns to be in the car, knew them to be stolen and exercised some control over them, his presence in the car, standing alone, would not be sufficient for a conviction.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Berry v. State · JCC v. State“"Such corroborative testimony need not be sufficiently strong in itself to support a conviction. `[I]t is sufficient if it legitimately tends to connect the accused with the offense.' Isbell v. State , 57 Ala. App. 444 , 329 So.2d 133 , 139 , (1976, per Bookout, J.)." (Emphasis in original.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Alabama, as early as 1888, adopted the rule that while a witness may be impeached by the use of prior contradictory statements, that such statement, ‘... should not be treated as original evidence of the facts of the case, nor be received for any other purpose than that of contradicting or impeaching the wit ness —Jones v. Pelham, 84 Ala. 208 , 4 So. 22 . ...’ Kennedy v. State, 85 Ala. 326 , 5 So. 300 . The Courts of this state have consistently held that the use of prior inconsistent statements, as used in the instant case, may not be considered as substantive evidence to prove the crime. Lewis v. State, 44 Ala.App. 319 , 208 So.2d 228 (1968); Lynn v. State, 37 Ala.App. 400 , 69 So.2d 485 (1954); Skinner v. State, 36 Ala.App. 434 , 60 So.2d 363 , cert. denied, 258 Ala. 713 , 60 So.2d 367 (1952); Brown v. State, 31 Ala.App. 233 , 14 So.2d 596 (1943), cert. denied, 244 Ala. 597 , 14 So.2d 598 ; Manning v. State, 217 Ala. 357 , 116 So. 360 (1928). “The latest expression on this point of law by the Supreme Court of Alabama comes in the civil case of Cloud v. Moon, 290 Ala. 33 , 273 So.2d 196 (1973). Justice Merrill, citing Lewis and Eisenberg [v. United States, 273 F.2d 127 (5th Cir.1959)], supra, held that the prior inconsistent written statement of a hostile witness called by the plaintiff could not be used as substantive evidence to establish the defendant’s liability.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Patterson 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.