757 So. 2d 457 - Wright v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Although the pendency of discovery does not alone bar a summary judgment, see Reeves v. Porter , 521 So.2d 963 , 965 (Ala. 1988), and Hope v. Brannan , 557 So.2d 1208 , 1212 (Ala. 1989), if the nonmoving party can demonstrate that the outstanding discovery is crucial to his case, then it is error for the trial court to enter a summary judgment before the discovery has been completed. Reeves , 521 So.2d at 965 ; Hope , 557 So.2d at 1212 . To show that the discovery sought is crucial to his case, the nonmoving party should comply with Rule 56(f), which provides: "`Should it appear from the affidavits of a party opposing the motion that the party cannot, for reasons stated, present by affidavit facts essential to justify the party's opposition, the court may deny the motion for summary judgment or may order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or depositions to be taken or discovery to be had or may make such other order as is just.'"”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Thompson v. Huntley · Harris v. Health Care Authority of Huntsville

2. “stat[ed] . . . that he required certain items of evidence that he had requested but had not yet received from the State. He specifically enumerated several items of evidence he had requested in his motion for production of evidence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 892 So. 2d 398 - McGhee v. Martin