628 So. 2d 1075 - Cox v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 12 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"In Cox's response to the state's motion to dismiss, Cox asserted that his petition is not a petition for writ of habeas corpus, but a petition [for a] writ *Page 590 of certiorari. As support, he cites Sellers v. State , 586 So.2d 994 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991), wherein the court affirmed the circuit court's denial of Seller's petition for writ of habeas corpus contesting the revocation of his parole by the Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles. In so holding, the Sellers court stated the following: "`While the trial court gave no reason for denying the petition other than the fact that it did so on the pleadings, its denial was proper, because review of an action by the Board is not by a habeas corpus proceeding. Generally, habeas corpus is inappropriate as a remedy to review the actions of an administrative board or commission, such as the Board. The appropriate remedy is an appeal pursuant to the Alabama Administrative Procedure Act, § 41-22-1 et seq., Code of Alabama 1975 (hereinafter "the Act"), if the administrative agency from which the appeal is taken comes within the purview of that Act. However, if the agency is exempted from the judicial review provisions of the Act and there is no other provision for statutory review, review is by petition for writ of certiorari. See Ellard v. State, 474 So.2d 743 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984), aff'd, 474 So.2d 758 (Ala. 1985) (in the absence of a right to appeal or other adequate remedy, the writ of certiorari lies to review the rulings of an admin”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 862 So. 2d 587 - Ex Parte Boykins

2. “"After a brief hearing, the circuit court dismissed the `Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,' specifically finding that `the denial of incentive good time does not raise a proper issue' because `inmates have no constitutional right to incentive good time.' By way of a `Motion for New Trial,' Cox objected to the circuit court's treatment of his petition as a habeas corpus petition, arguing that he `does not claim a constitutional right to incentive good time, but rather a procedur[al] right to have the statutory intent of the legislature applied to him as they intended it to.' The motion was denied. "Cox's arguments on appeal are that the circuit court improperly considered his petition to be a habeas corpus petition and consequently failed to address the issue of whether the amendment to Admin. Reg. 420 contravenes the legislature's intent. The state has failed to respond to these arguments. Based upon the considerations before us, we hold that the circuit court erred in treating Cox's petition for writ of certiorari as a petition for writ of habeas corpus, particularly because the court had no jurisdiction to entertain a habeas corpus petition filed by Cox. See § 15-21-6 [, Ala. Code 1975] (which requires that when the petitioner is confined in the penitentiary, the petition must be addressed to the nearest circuit court)."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 862 So. 2d 587 - Ex Parte Boykins

3. “We note that the Alabama Administrative Procedure Act, § 41-22-1 et seq., Code of Alabama 1975, offers no appropriate remedy in the instant case. See § 41-22-3 (9)(g)(1) (which excludes from the definition of `rule' `[a]ny rules or actions relating to . . . [t]he conduct of inmates of public institutions').”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 862 So. 2d 587 - Ex Parte Boykins