601 So. 2d 145 - Carnold v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
45 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently March 2016 · most notably 698 So. 2d 189 - Smith v. State (1996), 683 So. 2d 1042 - Ex Parte Windsor (1996)
45 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 Terry v. Ohio · Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Bagley · United States v. Sokolow · Alabama v. White
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“are bare allegations and cannot be considered as evidence or proof of the facts alleged.”
13 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Ex Parte Walker · Hall v. State“"Quite clearly, it is the duty of the trial judge 'to be thorough, courteous, patient, punctual, just, and impartial. Yet he is not required to be a "Great Stone Face" which shows no reaction to anything that happens in his courtroom. Allen v. State , 290 Ala. 339 , 276 So.2d 583 (1973).' Gwin v. State , 425 So.2d 500 , 506-07 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982), cert. quashed, 425 So.2d 510 (Ala. 1983). A trial judge is not 'a mere moderator' of a trial. Sprinkle v. State , 368 So.2d 554 , 562 (Ala.Cr.App. 1978), cert. quashed, 368 So.2d 565 (Ala. 1979). Instead, he has a vast array of responsibilities, including that of protecting witnesses 'from improper questions and from harsh or insulting demeanor.' See Ala. Code 1975, § 12-21-141 . In discharging his responsibilities, the trial judge may 'properly caution, correct, advise, admonish, and, to a certain extent, criticize counsel during the case, provided it is done in such manner as not to subject counsel to contempt or ridicule, or to prejudice accused in the minds of the jurors,' 23A, C.J.S., Criminal Law § 1182 (1989)."”
6 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Baker v. State · MT v. State“To determine whether reasonable suspicion existed for a particular stop, the totality of the circumstances, as known to the officer at the inception of the stop , [or, in this case, at the time of the continued detention ,] must be considered.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Hale · Peters v. State
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.