784 So. 2d 1077 - Bowles v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"In Bush v. Alabama Farm Bureau Mutual Casualty Insurance Company, Inc. , 576 So.2d 175 (Ala. 1991), the Alabama Supreme Court stated the general rule regarding motions in limine: "`We recognize that the trial court has broad discretion in evidentiary matters. The general rule was stated in State v. Askew , 455 So.2d 36 (Ala.Civ.App. 1984), citing C. Gamble, The Motion in Limine: A Pretrial Procedure That Has Come of Age , 33 Ala.L.Rev. 1 (1981), as follows: "`"In keeping with the vesting of broad discretion in the trial court in this area, it is generally held that the granting of a motion in limine can never be reversible error . The non-moving party may repeat at trial, preferably out of the hearing of the jury, his request for permission to prove the contested matter. This offer of proof is required in order to isolate the error for appeal. It is this refusal at trial to accept that proffered evidence, not the granting of the pretrial motion in limine, that serves as the basis for reversible error . Of course, this ability to bring up the matter a second time would not be available if counsel had requested and the *Page 292 judge had granted a prohibitive-absolute motion in limine .'" "` 455 So.2d at 37 (Ala.Civ.App. 1984). In Perry v. Brakefield , 534 So.2d 602 , 607 (Ala. 1988), this Court cited Professor Gamble and stated: "The clear holding of these cases is that unless the trial court's ruling on the motion in limine is absolute or unconditional, the ruling does not ”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 246 So. 3d 163 - Wynn v. State · 858 So. 2d 278 - Harrington v. State

2. “There is no evidence that the trial court's ruling on the motion in limine in this case was absolute or unconditional, and the record reflects that Bowles did not offer the contested evidence at trial and obtain a specific adverse ruling from the trial court. Accordingly, this issue was not preserved for appellate review.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 858 So. 2d 278 - Harrington v. State