783 So. 2d 135 - Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 10 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"`Siebert argues on appeal that his petition should not be barred by the two-year limitations period in Rule 32.2(c) for the following reasons: "`. . . . "`2. The State waived this affirmative defense by failing to raise it in its first responsive pleading. "`. . . . "`Claim 2, asserting that Rule 32.2(c) must be raised as an affirmative defense in the first responsive pleading or it is waived, is without merit.... "`. . . . "`... [N]otwithstanding the requirement of Rule 32.3 that the State "shall have the burden of pleading any ground of preclusion," this court has repeatedly stated that "[w]here a simple reading of a petition for post-conviction relief shows that, assuming the allegations of the petition to be true, it is obviously without merit or is precluded, the trial court may summarily dismiss the petition without requiring any response from the state." Burton v. State, 728 So.2d 1142, 1148 (Ala.Cr. App.1998) (citing Bishop v. State, 608 So.2d 345 (Ala.1992), and Patty v. State, 652 So.2d 337 (Ala.Cr.App. 1994)) (emphasis added). Thus, the trial court could have dismissed the petition on procedural grounds even without any response from the State.'”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ex Parte State of Alabama · 923 So. 2d 339 - Glover v. State