608 So. 2d 345 - Bishop v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
56 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently October 2017 · most notably Boyd v. State (2003), 991 So. 2d 313 - McNabb v. State (2007)
56 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 565 So. 2d 606 - Ex Parte Rice · 576 So. 2d 258 - Ex Parte Pierce · Bishop v. State · 482 So. 2d 1322 - Bishop 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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“' "Where a simple reading of the petition for post-conviction relief shows that, assuming every allegation of the petition to be true, it is obviously without merit or is precluded, the circuit court [may] summarily dismiss that petition.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage“"In Ex parte Pierce, 576 So.2d 258 (Ala.1991), the petitioner (Pierce) was convicted of intentional murder and was sentenced to death. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction, but remanded the case for a new sentencing hearing on the ground that the admission of a victim impact statement during Pierce's sentencing hearing violated his Eighth Amendment rights. "Pierce asked this Court to review the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals, pursuant to the provisions of Rule 39(c)[,] Ala.R.App.P., which requires this Court to grant certiorari petitions in cases in which a sentence of death is imposed,[ [3] ] as a matter of right. In deciding whether the Court of Criminal Appeals' affirmance of the petitioner's conviction constituted a `decision' within the meaning of Rule 39, Ala.R.App.P., this Court stated: "`We could construe the word "decisions" in Rule 39 broadly to apply to a ruling, such as the one in this case, that affirmed the petitioner's conviction, but we believe that we should construe the word more strictly to apply only to those rulings that finally adjudicate all the issues pending in the court of appeals.' "We denied Pierce's petition as premature because the Court of Criminal Appeals, even though it had affirmed Pierce's conviction, had not yet affirmed his sentence of death; thus, an issue still remained for that court to resolve concerning Pierce's sentence. "In the present case, the Court of Criminal Appeals has determined, as a matter of law”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“that this Court has held that the provisions of Rule 39 are inapplicable until there has been a final decision in the Court of Criminal Appeals....”
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.