593 So. 2d 121 - Felder v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently December 2015
8 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 Carter v. Kentucky · Lakeside v. Oregon · 586 So. 2d 954 - Ex Parte Webb · 368 So. 2d 310 - Perry v. State · 574 So. 2d 1025 - Kirkpatrick 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'Specific objection or motions are generally necessary before the ruling of the trial judge is subject to review, unless the ground is so obvious that the trial court's failure to act constitutes prejudicial error.' " Ex parte Purser , 607 So.2d 301 (Ala. 1992). "An objection, of course, should fairly and specifically point out the particular grounds on which an alleged error occurred in order to inform the trial judge of the legal basis of the objection, thereby affording the trial judge an opportunity to reevaluate his or her initial ruling in light of the grounds alleged and to change it, if deemed necessary.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“unreasonable and both realistically and practically indefensible to hold that the appellant waived this issue.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"MR. BELSER: Judge, I don't have a transcript of the trial, but it's my understanding that the defense attorney did not object to you refusing it. Y'all had discussed it and he just — "THE COURT: I don't believe he did either, and I know I would have given a *Page 986 detailed charge on presumption of innocence. And I'm going to deny your motion for new trial on that point. I give a very detailed charge on presumption and burden of proof. Presentation of evidence, I give a charge that the defense does not have to prove his innocence. The burden is always on the state, and I think it was covered. And I don't recall there being an objection but the record will speak on that."”
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.