611 So. 2d 472 - State v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 state decisions

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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘It is a fundamental principle of statutory construction that in enacting the statute the legislature had full knowledge and information as to prior and existing law and legislation on the subject of the statute.’ Miller v. State, 349 So.2d 129, 131 (Ala.Cr.App.1977). ‘[Sjections of the Code dealing with the same subject are in pari materia.’ Kelly v. State, 273 Ala. 240, 242 , 139 So.2d 326, 328 (1962). ‘It is a fundamental principle of statutory construction that statutes covering the same or similar subject matter should be construed in pari materia.’ Ex parte Johnson, 474 So.2d 715, 717 (Ala.1985). “ ‘As a general rule, such statutes should be construed together to ascertain the meaning and intent of each.’ Locke v. Wheat, 350 So.2d 451, 453 (Ala.1977). However, here the two statutes clearly conflict. Under the HFOA, a sentence of life without parole is authorized only upon a conviction of a Class A felony after a defendant has been previously convicted of any three felonies, but without consideration of the ‘class’ of those prior felonies. § 13A-5-9(c)(3). However, under § 15-22-27.2, a defendant who is convicted of a Class A felony and sentenced to life imprisonment actually receives a sentence of life without parole if he has one. prior conviction for a Class A felony. Under the HFOA, a defendant convicted of a Class A felony with one prior Class A felony (or Class B or C felony) conviction could only be ‘punished by imprisonment for life or for any term of not more ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Goldsmith v. Alabama Board of Pardons & Paroles

2. “"`In Alabama, the law governing implied repeals is well-settled and the cases on this point are singularly consistent. See 18 Ala.Dig., Statutes, Key 159 & 160. A concise statement of the rule is contained in City of Birmingham v. Southern Express Co., 164 Ala. 529, 538 , 51 So. 159 , 162: "`"Repeal by implication is not favored. It is only when two laws are so repugnant to or in conflict with each other that it must be presumed that the Legislature intended that the latter should repeal the former. * * *"' "`Implied repeal is essentially a question of determining the legislative intent as expressed in the statutes. Ex parte Jones, 212 Ala. 259, 260 , 102 So. 234 [(1924)]. When the provisions of two statutes are directly repugnant and cannot be reconciled, it must be presumed that the legislature intended an implied repeal, and the later statute prevails as the last expression of the legislative will.'"”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Stewart v. State

3. “"This Court in Allgood v. Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co., 196 Ala. 500, 501 , 71 So. 724 (1916) held: "`"Where an amendment is made that changes the old law in its substantial provisions, it must, by a necessary implication, repeal the old law so far as they are in conflict. And where a new law, whether it be in the form of an amendment or otherwise, covers the whole subject-matter of the former, and is inconsistent with it, and evidently intended to supersede and take the place of it, it repeals the old law by implication."' (Citations omitted).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Stewart v. State