575 So. 2d 621 - Heidelberg v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 state decisions

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

1. “"... `If the indictment is framed under a statute which defines the offense created, and prescribes its constituents, it must allege in the words of the statute, or other words equivalent in meaning, all the statutory elements which are essentially descriptive of the offense.' Barbee v. State, 417 So.2d 611, 612-13 (Ala.Cr.App.1982) (quoting Holt v. State, 86 Ala. 599, 600 , 5 So. 793 (1889), and quoted in Tinsley v. State, 485 So.2d [1249] at 1251 [Ala.Crim.App.1986]). `The rule is that "the indictment must contain all the essentials to constitute the offense, explicitly charged, and that they must not be left to inference."' 417 So.2d at 613 (quoting State v. Seay, 3 Stew. 123, 131 (Ala.1830))."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 776 So. 2d 819 - Travis v. State

2. “bound, even in the absence of an objection, to take notice of the indictment's failure to include an essential element of the offense.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lanier v. State

3. “' 417 So.2d at 613 (quoting State v. Seay, 3 Stew. 123, 131 (Ala.1830)).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 776 So. 2d 819 - Travis v. State