Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 672 So. 2d 1363 - Similton v. State

672 So. 2d 1363 - Similton v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1995

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
1
states following
October 2010
most recently cited

16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently October 2010

16 state decisions

110199520002010decided

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 National Labor Relations Board v. International Longshoremen's Ass'n · 598 So. 2d 895 - Ex Parte Jackson · Floyd v. State · 364 So. 2d 1 - Smith v. State · 601 So. 2d 145 - Carnold 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Assertions of counsel in an unverified motion for a new trial are bare allegations and cannot be considered as evidence or proof of the facts alleged.”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““We hold that where, as here, a criminal defendant’s motion for a new trial is denied under the provisions of Rule 24.4, Ala. R.Crim. P., without an affirmative statement by the trial judge giving the ruling a presumption of correctness and the defendant supports his new trial motion by evidence that was not presented at trial, and that evidence, if not controverted by the State, will entitle him to a new trial, the denial by operation of law should be reversed and the case remanded for the trial court to conduct a hearing on his motion for new trial and then enter an order either granting or denying the motion.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Nothing in the record indicates that the parties agreed to continue the hearing on Rogers's motion for a new trial past the 60-day period provided for in Rule 24.4. Therefore, Rogers's motion for a new trial was denied by operation of law on May 15, 2000, 60 days after he was sentenced. Because the motion was denied by operation of law on May 15, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hold a hearing on May 25, 2000, and the trial court's order purporting to deny the motion after the hearing was”
    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.