710 So. 2d 1362 - May v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently April 2016
23 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1865
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Davis v. Alaska · Napue v. People of the State of Illinois · Caldwell v. Mississippi · Ake v. Oklahoma
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The presence or absence of bad faith by the police for purposes of the Due Process Clause must necessarily turn on the police's knowledge of the exculpatory value of the evidence at the time it was lost or destroyed.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“"`"[t]he Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment goes no further than to prohibit invidious discrimination. . . . If there is some reasonable basis for the recognition of separate classes, and if the disparate treatment of the classes has a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by lawmakers, the Constitution is not offended. . . ."' " Goodson v. State , 588 So.2d 509 , 514 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991) (quoting State v. Thompson , 133 N.J. Super. 180 , 336 A.2d 11 , 14 (1975))."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““ ‘Once a prima facie case has been submitted to the jury, this Court will not upset the jury’s verdict except in extreme situations in which it is clear from the record that the evidence against the accused was so lacking as to make the verdict wrong and unjust. Deutcsh v. State, 610 So.2d 1212, 1234-35 (Ala.Crim.App.1992). This Court will not substitute itself for the jury in determining the weight and probative force of the evidence. Benton v. State, 536 So.2d 162, 165 (Ala.Crim.App.1988).’”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Chapman v. State · Alonso 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.