724 So. 2d 69 - Young v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

cited by 7 later decisions

states following

September 2011

most recently cited

7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently September 2011

7 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 471 So. 2d 485 - Faircloth v. State · 471 So. 2d 493 - Ex Parte Faircloth · 710 So. 2d 1276 - Williams v. State · 516 So. 2d 726 - Jackson v. State · 695 So. 2d 70 - Bush v. State

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

“`The State presented evidence of one [robbery], but not two separate robberies. The evidence tended to show that Young committed one continuous act of robbery against V.E., using a deadly weapon while committing a theft. The fact that Young forced V.E. into another room does not create a second robbery. The trial court erred in instructing the jury that it did. See Rolling v. State , 673 So.2d 812 , 815 (Ala.Crim.App. 1995).'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Craig v. State · McPherson v. State
“`The constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy protects a defendant from being subjected to multiple punishments for the same offense. This guarantee bars the conviction of a defendant for two separate counts of first-degree robbery where the evidence adduced at trial tended to show that the defendant committed only one act of robbery against one victim. Moore v. State , 709 So.2d 1324 (Ala.Crim.App. 1997).'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. McPherson v. State · 978 So. 2d 794 - Abrams v. State
“`In determining the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction, a reviewing court must accept as true all evidence introduced by the State, accord the State all legitimate inferences therefrom, and consider all evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
e.g. Vaughn 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.