Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 677 So. 2d 814 - Crumpton v. State

677 So. 2d 814 - Crumpton v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1995

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
3
states following
January 2012
most recently cited

9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently January 2012

9 state decisions

40199520002010decided

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 Edwards v. Arizona · Doerr v. Doerr · Oregon v. Bradshaw · Martin v. Delaware · Martin v. Delaware

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

  1. “' 638 So.2d at 1334 . " 'Based on the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics and Alabama Supreme Court cases interpreting Canon 3(C)(1), we hold that Judge Galanos erred in failing to recuse himself from hearing the appellant's cases. As the Alabama Supreme Court stated in Duncan , the question is not whether the judge is in fact impartial but whether another person "might reasonably question the judge's impartiality.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “'The Alabama Supreme Court in Rushing v. City of Georgiana , 361 So.2d 11 (Ala. 1978), had the first occasion after the adoption of the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics to address a similar question to the one presented here. The court stated the following concerning Canon 3:”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “'Canon 3(C)(1), Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics, states:”
    2 later decisions 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.