State v. Crossman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 state decisions

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

1. “"[T]he answer does not contain a denial of any of the facts stated in the petition for mandamus, nor does it contain averments of other facts sufficient in law to defeat the petitioner's application. It follows that the averments of fact in the petition for mandamus . . . will be taken as true. — State ex rel. St. Peter's M. Baptist Church v. Smith , [ 215 Ala. 449 , 111 So. 28 (Ala 1927)] Ex parte Cullinan , [ 224 Ala. 263 , 139 So. 255 (Ala. 1931)]."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ex Parte Swoope · 905 So. 2d 32 - Ex Parte Bridges

2. “"`"A writ of prohibition is an extraordinary writ which is to be employed with extreme caution and used only in cases of extreme necessity. Ex parte State Dep't of Mental Health Mental Retardation , 536 So.2d 78 (Ala.Civ.App. 1988); see also Ex parte Perry County Board of Education , 278 Ala. 646 , 180 So.2d 246 (1965). Prohibition is not a favored writ and will not issue unless there is no other adequate remedy. Ex parte Strickland , 401 So.2d 33 (Ala. 1981); Barber Pure Milk Co. of Montgomery, Inc. v. Alabama State Milk Control Board , 274 Ala. 563 , 150 So.2d 693 (1963); Ex parte Burch , 236 Ala. 662 , 184 So. 694 (1938). The petition for the writ `properly tests jurisdiction, and lies *Page 34 when a court acts in excess of its jurisdiction.' Ex parte City of Tuskegee , 447 So.2d 713 , 716 (Ala. 1984). The writ is preventive rather than corrective and is utilized to prevent the usurpation of excessive jurisdiction by a judicial tribunal. Ball v. Jones , 272 Ala. 305 , 132 So.2d 120 (1961); see also Mental Health, supra. Issuance of a writ of prohibition lies within the discretion of the court, and the writ is granted or withheld according to the nature and circumstances of the case, not as a matter of right. Barber, supra; Dear v. Peek , 261 Ala. 137 , 73 So.2d 358 (1954). `Prohibition is the proper remedy to intercept and put an end to usurpation of jurisdiction.' Ex parte State ex rel. Bragg , 240 Ala. 80 , 85 , 197 So. 32 , 36 (1940)."' " Ex parte Moody , 681 So.2d 276”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 905 So. 2d 32 - Ex Parte Bridges · 771 So. 2d 485 - Ex Parte Coffee County Dept. of Human Res.

3. “Ex parte Moody , 681 So.2d 276 , 276-77 (Ala.Crim.App. 1996), quoting Ex parte Shoemaker , 644 So.2d 958 , 959 (Ala.Civ.App. 1993), rev'd , 644 So.2d 961 (Ala.), on remand , 644 So.2d 966 (Ala.Civ.App. 1994).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 905 So. 2d 32 - Ex Parte Bridges