713 So. 2d 981 - Mitchell v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently May 2010
3 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 Anders v. California · Radke v. State · Day v. State · 378 So. 2d 1173 - Turner v. State · 435 So. 2d 1365 - Ex Parte Story
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“". . .Because the appellant was in the nonexclusive possession of the patrol car, other evidence was required to show that the appellant knew the cocaine was in the car. However, `[t]he kinds of other evidence of circumstances that could provide the additional support necessary to show possession [are] unlimited and will vary with each case.' Palmer v. State , 593 So.2d 143 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991). See also Perry v. State , 534 So.2d 1126 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988), and Bright v. State , 673 So.2d 851 (Ala.Cr.App. 1995). Furthermore, knowledge is usually established by circumstantial evidence. See Rowell v. State , 666 So.2d 830 (Ala. 1995); Ward v. State , 484 So.2d 536 (Ala.Cr.App. 1995)."”
2 later decisions 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.