Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 821 So. 2d 1021 - CDC v. State

821 So. 2d 1021 - CDC v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2001

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
June 2007
most recently cited

9 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 363 So. 2d 1020 - Thomas v. State · 447 So. 2d 199 - Willis v. State · 570 So. 2d 703 - Newsome v. State · 361 So. 2d 1182 - Tyson v. State · 50 Ala. App. 312 - Garsed v. State

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

  1. “"Any person arrested or charged with the violation of a controlled substance offense as set forth in Sections 13A-12-212 , 13A-12-213 or 13A-12-214 may file a request with the district attorney having jurisdiction over the offense to enroll in a drug abuse treatment program in lieu of undergoing prosecution. Admission to such treatment program and deferral of prosecution may be granted at the discretion of the district attorney."”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““ ‘ “A two-step test is used under the subjective approach: the first inquiry is whether or not the offense was induced by a government agent; and the second is whether or not the defendant was predisposed to commit the type of offense charged. A defendant is considered predisposed if he is ‘ready and willing to commit the crimes such as are charged in the indictment, whenever opportunity was afforded.’ If the accused is found to be predisposed, the defense of entrapment may not prevail. The predisposition test reflects an attempt to draw a line between ‘a trap for the unwary innocent and the trap for the unwary criminal.’ The emphasis under the subjective approach is clearly upon the defendant’s propensity to commit the offense rather than on the officer’s misconduct.” (Footnotes omitted.)’ “Davis v. State, 570 So.2d 791, 793 (Ala.Crim.App.1990). See also Garsed v. State, 50 Ala.App. 312 , 278 So.2d 761 (Cr.1973).””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.