641 So. 2d 1316 - Riddle v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Where appellant, without sufficient excuse, does not appear for trial de novo when called for trial, the court may dismiss the appeal, order the bond forfeited, and remand the case to the court appealed from for enforcement of the lower court judgment; provided, however, that on motion of the appellant for good cause shown, the circuit court may, within thirty (30) days of the date of the order of dismissal, set the order of dismissal aside and reinstate the appeal on such terms as the circuit court may prescribe."”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Campbell v. City of Daphne · Hulsey v. State

2. “" 'Where appellant, without sufficient excuse, does not appear for trial de novo when called the trial, the court may dismiss the appeal, order the bond forfeited, and remand the case to the court appealed from for enforcement of the lower court judgment; provided, however, that on motion of the appellant for good cause shown, the circuit court may, within thirty (30) days of the date of the order of dismissal, set the order of dismissal aside and reinstate the appeal on such terms as the circuit court may prescribe. The entry of a judgment of default on the appeal bond shall comply with the procedures set forth in § 15-13-81 , and a forfeiture may be entered by the circuit court or the court from which the appeal is taken.' (Emphasis added [in Riddle ].) "In Ex parte Hilburn , 591 So.2d 8 (Ala. 1991), the Alabama Supreme Court settled the question whether the mandatory provisions of § 12-14-70 (f) or the permissive provisions of Rule 30.5(b), govern the dismissal of appeals for trial de novo. The court held that the mandatory provisions of the statute rather than the permissive provisions of the rule 'accurately represent the policy of this state.' Ex parte Hilburn , 591 So.2d at 12 . "The Hilburn court was not called upon to decide, as we are, the point at which the circuit court has authority to dismiss a de novo appeal because of the defendant's failure to appear in court. The appellant argues that the circuit court had no authority to dismiss his appeal prior to the date”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. City of Leeds v. Barefield · Hulsey v. State

3. “'We have been cited to no authority authorizing the dismissal of a de novo appeal based upon a defendant's failure to appear at a time other than when the defendant's case is called for trial. See Ex parte Lawson , 578 So.2d 1052 (Ala. 1991) (defendant not present when case called for trial); Grizzard v. City of Huntsville , 641 So.2d 1273 (Ala.Cr.App. 1993) (defendant not present when case called for trial); Knight v. City of Enterprise , 594 So.2d 1302 (Ala.Cr.App. 1992) (defendant not present at call of trial docket).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. McLemore v. State · 710 So. 2d 537 - Mayes v. State