Gwarjanski v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently February 2012
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 Allen v. United States · Connecticut v. Mohegan Tribe · 397 So. 2d 203 - Hurst v. State · 574 So. 2d 921 - King v. State · 474 So. 2d 168 - Bush v. City of Troy
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.
“"`"`The general rule in Alabama has been that it is not improper for the trial court to urge upon the jury the duty of attempting to reach an agreement or verdict as long as the judge does not suggest which way the verdict should be returned.'" King v. State, 574 So.2d 921, 927-28 (Ala.Cr. App.1990), quoting McMorris v. State, 394 So.2d 392 (Ala.Cr.App.1980), cert. denied, 394 So.2d 404 (Ala.1981), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 972 , 101 S.Ct. 3127 , 69 L.Ed.2d 983 (1981). An Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 , 17 S.Ct. 154 , 41 L.Ed. 528 (1896), charge, also known as a "dynamite charge," is permissible if the language of the charge is not coercive or threatening. Grayson v. State, 611 So.2d 422, 425 (Ala. Cr.App.1992); King v. State, 574 So.2d at 928 .' " Gwarjanski v. State, 700 So.2d 357, 360 (Ala.Cr.App.1997). Further, `[w]hether an " Allen charge" is coercive must be evaluated in the "whole context" of the case.' Miller v. State, 645 So.2d 363, 366 (Ala.Cr.App.1994)."”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. MH v. State · M.H. v. State
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.