Rutledge v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently September 2014
14 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 Batson v. Kentucky · Powers v. Ohio · JEB v. Alabama Ex Rel. TB · Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co. · Georgia v. McCollum
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“palpably contrary to the great weight of the evidence.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Urioso v. State · Waldrop v. State“"Before a witness may be impeached by use of a prior inconsistent statement, the party seeking to impeach must lay a proper predicate. "`When a witness, on cross-examination, denies that he made a statement out of court which is inconsistent with his testimony on direct examination, the only available move for the impeaching party is to bring on an impeaching witness who can testify as to the prior inconsistent statement of the witness being impeached. Before such extrinsic evidence may be elicited, however, it is the general rule that the impeaching party must lay a proper predicate by asking the party being impeached whether he made such statement, specifying with reasonable certainty the time when, the place where, the person to whom such supposed statement was made and the substance of such statement.' "C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence, § 157.01(1) (4th ed.1991). "The new Alabama Rules of Evidence, effective January 1, 1996, state: "`Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness is not admissible unless the witness has been confronted with the circumstances of the statement with sufficient particularity to enable the witness to identify the statement and is afforded an opportunity to admit or deny having made it.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“`Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness is not admissible unless the witness has been confronted with the circumstances of the statement with sufficient particularity to enable the witness to identify the statement and is afforded an opportunity to admit or deny having made it.'”
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.