Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 574 SO2D 953 - Moorman v. State

Moorman v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1990

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
2
states following
August 2015
most recently cited

20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently August 2015

20 state decisions

160199020002010decided

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 102 S. Ct. 969 - United States v. Security Industrial Bank · Newland v. Georgia · Contemporary Mission, Inc. v. United States · Livingston v. Texas · United States v. Haldeman

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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “'Evidence momentarily unattended in a hospital setting to which only medical personnel have access is admissible, if otherwise sufficiently authenticated. See McIntosh v. State , 443 So.2d 1275 [Ala.Cr.App.], reversed on other grounds, 443 So.2d 1283 (Ala. 1983) (slide delivered to lab reception area and momentarily unattended admissible); Baynes v. State , 423 So.2d 307 , 311 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982) (panties thrown by rape prosecutrix into clothes hamper, and rape kit unattended for hours in hospital both admissible over chain of custody objection).'”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[d]espite the facts that two 'links' in the chain of custody did not testify and were only generally identified as a unit secretary and a person from the laboratory”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “"The injured defendant was taken to the East Alabama Medical Center. Wanda Johnson, a registered nurse on duty in the emergency room, testified that between 3:30 and 4:00 that afternoon she simultaneously drew at least three blood samples from the defendant for `diagnostic purposes' and for `legal purposes.' Each sample was placed in a prepackaged tube and each tube had a different colored top.... She did testify that she sealed each tube and identified each sample with the defendant's name and hospital number. She then gave one sample to Opelika police detective John Richardson. She gave the other samples to the `unit secretary to be sent to the lab.' She testified that `[s]omebody from the lab picked it up.' Johnson testified that tests for the emergency room were `automatically done stat [as soon as possible.].' Neither the unit secretary nor the person from the laboratory who picked up the sample testified at trial. "Jane Trip was the `toxicology coordinator' for the hospital laboratory.... She tested the one sample of the defendant's blood she received from `laboratory personnel.' This sample had a red and grey speckled top and appeared to be `intact.' She testified that the information on the sample container indicated that the sample had been taken at 3:30 p.m."”
    3 later decisions 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.