593 So. 2d 103 - Woods v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
6 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 474 So. 2d 168 - Bush v. City of Troy · 375 So. 2d 523 - Daniels v. State · Vizzina v. City of Birmingham · 481 So. 2d 463 - Gibson v. City of Troy · 533 So. 2d 652 - Vizzina v. City of Birmingham
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The Statute under which this defendant is prosecuted makes it unlawful for a person to drive or be in actual physical control of any vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. "Section 32-5A-191 (a)(2), Code of Alabama 1975, states as follows: A person shall not drive or be in actual physical control of any vehicle while under influence of alcohol. Therefore, to sustain the charge of driving under the influence that is made in this case, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt each of the following elements of that offense. First, that on January 1, 1991, the defendant drove or was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle; two, at such time and place the defendant was under the influence of alcohol; and, three, that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol to the extent that it affected his ability to operate his vehicle in a safe manner. "When a person is under the influence of alcohol, his ability to drive is impaired, and he is incapable of driving safely. "Accordingly, a person is guilty of violating the law involved in this case if he drives a vehicle under the influence of alcohol; and, further, that he was under the influence of alcohol to the extent that it affected his ability to operate his vehicle in a safe manner. "When deciding whether the State has proved that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol, in addition to the evidence that you have seen and heard, you may also take into account the following statute enacted into law by ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“"This predicate may be established by showing, first, that the law enforcement agency has adopted the particular form of testing that was in fact used. Second, there must be a showing that the test was performed according to methods approved by the State Board of Health. This may be proved by the introduction of the rules and regulations the officer followed while administering the test and the officer's testimony that he did, in fact, follow those rules when he administered the test in question. Third, there must be a showing that the person administering the test has a valid permit *Page 201 issued by the State Board of Health for that purpose." 2”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“This court has stated on several occasions that a trial court commits no error in denying a discovery motion made on the day of trial because 'the lateness of the motion would delay the trial' Daniels v. State , *Page 441 375 So.2d 523 , 529 (Ala.Cr.App. 1979); Juzang v. State , 348 So.2d 516 (Ala.Cr.App. 1977); Fuller v. State , 338 So.2d 492 (Ala.Cr.App. 1976).”
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.