Ex Parte Dorough’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'Words used in a statute must be given their natural, plain, ordinary, and commonly understood meaning, and where plain language is used a court is bound to interpret that language to mean exactly what it says. If the language of the statute is unambiguous, then there is no room for judicial construction and the clearly expressed intent of the legislature must be given effect.'”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Duncan v. City of Montgomery · Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 64 v. Personnel Board of Jefferson County

2. “"In United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 , 118 S.Ct. 2028 , 141 L.Ed.2d 314 (1998), the Supreme Court established a standard for determining whether a forfeiture constitutes an excessive fine for purposes of the Eighth Amendment. The Supreme Court held that `a punitive forfeiture violates the Excessive Fines Clause if it is grossly disproportional to the gravity of a defendant's offense.' 524 U.S. at 334 , 118 S.Ct. at 2036 . The Supreme Court explained: "`In applying this standard, the district courts in the first instance, and the courts of appeals, reviewing the proportionality determination de novo, must compare the amount of the forfeiture to the gravity of the defendant's offense. If the amount of the forfeiture is grossly disproportional to the gravity of the defendant's offense, it is unconstitutional.' " 524 U.S. at 336-37 , 118 S.Ct. 2028 . The Supreme Court stated that, in determining excessiveness, (1) `judgments about the appropriate punishment for an offense belong in the first instance to the legislature,' and (2) `any judicial determination regarding the gravity of a particular criminal offense will be inherently imprecise.' 524 U.S. at 336 , 118 S.Ct. 2028 ."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ables v. State · Alexander v. State

3. “"[W]e cannot undertake the proportionality analysis established in [ United States v.] Bajakajian [, 524 U.S. 321 (1998),] and followed by this Court in [Ex parte] Kelley, [ 766 So.2d 837 (Ala. 1999),] because the record here is insufficient for us to do so. No evidence in the record indicates the value of Dorough's truck, the amount of cocaine seized from the truck, or the criminal charge, if any, made against Dorough. Dorough and the State agree that a remand is necessary so that the trial court can determine, as a fact, the value of Dorough's truck."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 904 So. 2d 1265 - Alexander v. State