739 So. 2d 545 - Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"We have found no Alabama case in which the precise issue now before us has been addressed. However, applying the rules of statutory construction and considering the purposes of the Criminal Code as well as the plain language of § 13A-8-16 , Ala. Code 1975, we hold that, even when the evidence shows that the defendant stole the property he or she is subsequently charged with `receiving,' a conviction for `receiving' that stolen property is not prohibited if the evidence shows that the defendant disposed of the property, as opposed to merely receiving or retaining it. By setting forth the types of proscribed conduct in the alternative with the word `or,' a reasonable interpretation of”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 956 So. 2d 1174 - Stoinski v. State

2. “Therefore, we hold that a person who steals property may be convicted of receiving that same stolen property, under § 13A-8-16 , Ala. Code 1975, if the evidence shows that he disposed of the property.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 956 So. 2d 1174 - Stoinski v. State

3. “"We use the term `receiving' here to mean the general offense proscribed by § 13A-8-16 (a) and not one of the three prohibited courses of conduct set out in that statute."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 956 So. 2d 1174 - Stoinski v. State