621 So. 2d 342 - Carden v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently October 2015 · most notably Johnson v. State (2001), 715 So. 2d 895 - Lockhart v. State (1997)
26 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 Brady v. State of Maryland · DiCarlantonio v. United States · Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. LTV Corp. · 368 So. 2d 871 - Cumbo v. State · Skelton v. City of Birmingham
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The trial court has almost absolute discretion in ruling on applications for youthful offender status, and the actions of the trial judge are presumptively correct in the absence of a showing to the contrary. Morgan v. State , 363 So.2d 1013 (Ala.Cr.App. 1978).”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“"A trial judge is not required to recite his reasons for denying an application for youthful offender status in his order denying the application. Arrington v. State , 513 So.2d 40 , 41-42 (Ala.Cr.App. 1987). It is sufficient if the order of denial reflects that some investigation, examination, or inquiry was conducted before the application for youthful offender status was denied. Talley v. State , 504 So.2d 741 , 742-43 (Ala.Cr.App. 1987). A formal hearing on an application for youthful offender status is not required. Garrett v. State , 440 So.2d 1151 , 1152 (Ala.[Crim.App.]1983). Where it does not affirmatively appear that the trial court's decision was arbitrary or that it was made without any examination or investigation, there is no basis for overturning the trial court's decision. Wilson v. State , 563 So.2d 11 , 12 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989)."”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“"`The trial court has almost absolute discretion in ruling on applications for youthful offender status, and the actions of the trial judge are presumptively correct in the absence of a showing to the contrary.' Carden v. State, 621 So.2d 342, 345 (Ala.Cr.App.1992). "`"When deciding whether to grant youthful offender status, it is expected that the nature of the crime charged, along with prior convictions of the defendant, will be considered, as well as any other matters deemed relevant by the court. No prescribed format is required. Neither is the trial court required to articulate on the record the reasons for denying youthful offender status to a defendant."' " Self v. State, 512 So.2d 811, 814 (Ala.Cr. App.1987), quoting Goolsby v. State, 492 So.2d 635, 636 (Ala.Cr.App.1986) (citations omitted). "`It is sufficient if the order of denial reflects that some investigation, examination, or inquiry was conducted before the application for youthful offender status was denied. Talley v. State, 504 So.2d 741, 742-43 (Ala.Cr. App.1987). A formal hearing on an application for youthful offender status is not required. Garrett v. State, 440 So.2d 1151, 1152 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983). Where it does not affirmatively appear that the trial court's decision was arbitrary or that it was made without any examination or investigation, there is no basis for overturning the trial court's decision. Wilson v. State, 563 So.2d 11, 12 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989).' " Carden, 621 So.2d at 345 ."”
3 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.