Ex Parte Martin’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
16 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Ex Parte Fowler · American Pioneer Life Ins. Co. v. Sandlin · State ex rel. McKinney v. Smoot · 339 So. 2d 66 - Jett v. Honda Motor Company, Ltd. · 548 So. 2d 451 - C & G Development v. Planning Com'n
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'as a result of complications of a closed head injury resulting in subdural hematoma and cerebral edema.' " Order of the circuit court, August 12, 1993, p. 3. On April 28, 1993, the petitioner moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the statute on which the indictment was based, Ala. Code 1975, § 13A-5-40 (a)(15), was unconstitutional. On July 2, 1993, the trial court held a hearing on the matter. On August 3, 1993, the trial court issued a written order denying the motion to dismiss and upholding the statute. That order was supplemented by a second order dated August 12, 1993, in which the trial judge set out the State's factual allegations and postponed the trial of the case to allow the petitioner the opportunity to seek appellate review of the denial of the motion to dismiss the indictment. This Court is well aware that "[p]etitions for writ of mandamus cannot be substituted for appeals to review adverse legal rulings of lower courts.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[A]s a matter of law, [defendants who are not joint tortfeasors and] whose acts do not combine to cause one single injury cannot claim a set-off ... [as to] any amount received by the plaintiff in settlement with other [defendants who are not joint tortfeasors] based on distinct acts of those defendants.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) a clear legal right . . . to the order sought; (2) an imperative duty upon the respondent to perform, accompanied by a refusal to do so; (3) a lack of another adequate remedy; and (4) properly invoked jurisdiction of the court.”
2 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.