651 So. 2d 1138 - Sullivan v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently September 2015
8 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 Illinois v. Gates · Ryan v. United States · United States v. Carmichael · 366 So. 2d 740 - Temple v. State · 507 So. 2d 558 - Korreckt 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The extent of the voir dire examination is largely discretionary with the trial court. Jennings v. State , 513 So.2d 91 (Ala.Cr.App. 1987); Heath v. State , 480 So.2d 26 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985). A trial court will only be reversed for an abuse of that discretion. Jennings; Edwards v. State , 452 So.2d 487 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982), rev'd. on other grounds, 452 So.2d 503 (Ala. 1983). "Since the record does not contain the voir dire portion of the trial record, this court cannot determine if there was an abuse of discretion. See Fuller v. State , 472 So.2d 452 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985) (appellate court review is limited to matters of record)."”
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.