607 So. 2d 369 - Hull v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 84 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 86 later decisions — most recently October 2018 · most notably Callahan v. Campbell (2005), Arthur v. State (1996)
2 federal appellate · 84 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 Neil v. Biggers · Edwards v. Arizona · Manson v. Brathwaite · Burks v. United States · Ashe v. Swenson
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 86 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“is not a part of the record in the present appeal, this Court may take judicial notice of its own records in this situation.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“each and every element of the offense charged”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Although we noted that `the only evidence incriminating the [defendant was erroneously admitted],' Hull [v. State ], 581 So.2d [1202], 1207 [(Ala.Crim.App.1990)], we did not render judgment in favor of the appellant. Instead, this Court reversed and remanded the cause `for further proceedings not inconsistent with' our opinion. Id. Our disposition of the first appeal was in conformance with Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33 , 109 S.Ct. 285 , 102 L.Ed.2d 265 (1988).... ". . . . "... This Court's disposition of the first appeal was based only on what was contained in the record of that appeal and was undertaken without any knowledge of or speculation about what other evidence the State might have to offer in the event of a retrial. Compare State v. Post, 109 N.M. 177, 181 , 783 P.2d 487, 491 (1989) (`[w]e will not speculate as to what additional evidence or alternate theories the state could have brought forward had the trial court properly excluded the inadmissible evidence.')." Hull, 607 So.2d at 371-72 (emphasis in original). Accord Ex parte Hergott, 588 So.2d 911, 914 (Ala.1991) (stating that the Double Jeopardy Clause precludes the relitigation of the admissibility of evidence held inadmissible on appeal). [4]”
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.