647 So. 2d 79 - DuBoise v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
April 1997
most recently cited
6 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Morrissey v. Brewer · Gagnon v. Scarpelli · Armstrong v. State · 608 So. 2d 762 - Ex Parte State · 579 So. 2d 693 - Grimes 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The state argues that this case should not be remanded because the appellant admitted that he violated the terms of his probation. In Wyatt v. State, 608 So.2d 762 (Ala.1992) ], the Alabama Supreme Court, when dismissing the petition, reaffirmed its holding in Armstrong and stated that the court must make written findings. ‘The written statement of the reasons relied upon ‘“relates to a matter of substance and not mere form’ Carter v. State, 389 So.2d 601 (Ala.Cr.App.1980).” ’ Grimes v. State], 579 So.2d [693] at 694 [ (Ala.Cr.App.1991) ]. See also S.B.S. v. State, 675 So.2d 1340 (Ala.Cr.App.1994). The fact that the appellant admitted the violation does not reheve a court from complying with the constitutional requirements mandated by Morrissey and Gag-non.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Perry v. State““‘(a) written notice of the claimed violations of [probation or] parole; (b) disclosure to the [probationer or] parolee of evidence against him; (e) opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence; (d) the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses (unless the hearing officer specifically finds good cause for not allowing confrontation); (e) a “neutral and detached” hearing body such as a traditional parole board, members of which need not be judicial officers or lawyers; and (f) a ' written statement by the factfinders as to the evidence relied on and reasons for revoking [probation or] parole.’ Morris sey v. Brewer, supra, at 489 , 92 S.Ct. at 2604 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Perry v. State
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.