644 So. 2d 45 - Allen v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently October 2016
22 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 Gagnon v. Scarpelli · Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. Federal Maritime Commission · Armstrong v. State · 40 Ala. App. 587 - Fiorella v. State · 350 So. 2d 716 - Hill 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A `mere arrest' or the filing of charges is an insufficient basis for revoking one's probation.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. McGhee v. State · Attaway v. State““ ‘The judge shall make a written statement or state for the record the evidence relied upon and the reasons for revoking probation.’ Rule 27.6(f), A.R.Cr.P. This rule is ‘intended to comply with Armstrong v. State, 294 Ala. 100 , 312 So.2d 620 (1975), and Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 [ 93 S.Ct. 1756 , 36 L.Ed.2d 656 ] (1973).’ Committee Comments to Rule 27.6. “ ‘Section (f) is included to give a reviewing court a basis for evaluating the revocation hearing and decision. Both Gagnon, supra, and Armstrong, supra, require that a written statement be made as to the evidence relied upon and the reasons for revoking probation. A written judgment entry would constitute a sufficient written statement.’ Id.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"A 'mere arrest' or the filing of charges is an insufficient basis for revoking one's probation. . . . ". . . All that is required of the trial judge in a probation revocation hearing is that the court be reasonably satisfied therefrom of the truth of the charge. Armstrong v. State , 294 Ala. 100 , 312 So.2d 620 (1975); Goodrum v. State , 418 So.2d 942 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982); Carter v. State , 389 So.2d 601 (Ala.Cr.App. 1980).' " Smith v. State , 445 So.2d 573 , 574-75 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984). The record contains no statement by the trial judge that he was reasonably satisfied that the appellant was guilty of the charged offenses. In fact, the record indicates that the trial judge considered the fact that the appellant had been charged with an offense to be a sufficient basis for the revocation."”
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.