Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 57 ALAAPP 658 - East v. State.

East v. State.’s Empirical Analysis

1976

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
October 2003
most recently cited

5 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Clemmons v. State · Morgan 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.

  1. “"We have again carefully read the Youthful Offender Act, Title 15, Section 266(1) et seq., Code of Alabama 1940 (Supplement) [now codified at § 15-19-1 et seq., Ala.Code 1975], and we do not find a provision for a second or successive applications for treatment as a Youthful Offender after the Court has, in his discretion, denied the first application. ".... "In Clemmons v. State , Ala., [ 294 Ala. 746 ,] 321 So.2d 238 [(1975)], the Supreme Court said: "`The court would naturally consider such matters as the nature of the crime charged, prior convictions, or absence thereof — all of which can be ascertained without a lengthy, time consuming investigation by the probation officer. "`Further — "`However, our statute requires that the determination to grant or refuse youthful offender treatment be made at a point near the commencement of the criminal action, and before entry of a plea. ' (Emphasis supplied.). "Appellant pleaded guilty to grand larceny and then reapplied for Youthful Offender treatment. As we read Clemmons, supra, such procedure is not justified or authorized."”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “We have again carefully read the Youthful Offender Act, Title 15, Section 266(1) et seq., Code of Alabama 1940 (Supplement) [now codified at § 15-19-1 et seq., Ala.Code 1975], and we do not find a provision for a second or successive applications for treatment as a Youthful Offender after the Court has, in his discretion, denied the first application.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.