678 So. 2d 1197 - Grimsley v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently March 2016
21 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · Batson v. Kentucky · United States v. Agurs · Hernandez v. New York
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"`The granting of a mistrial is an extreme measure and should be exercised only when manifestly necessary or when the ends of justice would otherwise be defeated.' The granting of a mistrial is addressed to the broad discretion of the trial judge, and his ruling will not be revised on appeal unless it clearly appears that such discretion has been abused."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“"`A party who suffers an adverse ruling on a motion in limine can preserve the ruling for post-judgment and appellate review only by objecting to the introduction of the proffered evidence and assigning specific grounds at the time of trial, unless he or she obtains the express acquiescence of the trial judge that a subsequent objection and assignment of grounds are not necessary.' "Miles v. State, 650 So.2d 583 , 586 (Ala.Cr.App. 1994), quoting, Parks v. State, 587 So.2d 1012 (Ala. 1991)."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“'In Alabama, there is no requirement that a defendant be allowed to question each prospective juror individually during voir dire examination. This rule applies to capital cases, and the granting of a request for individual voir dire is discretionary with the trial court.' Coral v. State , 628 So.2d 954 , 968 (Ala.Cr.App. 1992). 'The fact that the appellant's case involved capital murder is not alone reason to require individual voir dire. . . . A trial court's decision in denying individual voir dire examination of a jury panel will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion.' Smith v. State , 588 So.2d 561 , 579 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991). See also Henderson v. State , 583 So.2d 276 , 283 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990), affirmed, 583 So.2d 305 (Ala. 1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 908 , 112 S.Ct. 1268 , 117 L.Ed.2d 496 (1992).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.