Ex Parte Webb’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““A juvenile could not appeal from the juvenile court directly to an appellate court until 1982, when Rule 28, Ala. R. Juv. P., was adopted. At that time, however, Rule 28 did not address whether the jurisdiction of the circuit court was stayed during the pendency of the appeal of the transfer order. The Supreme Court has subsequently amended Rule 28 by adding subsection (F), effective August 1, 2000, to provide that ‘[t]he filing of an appeal from an order transferring a child to the adult court for criminal prosecution shall stay the proceedings in the circuit court.’ “Subsection (F) of Rule 28 did not exist when Webb appealed his transfer order on November 1, 1983, and entered his guilty plea in the circuit court on February 9,1984, while his appeal of the transfer order was still pending before the Court of Criminal Appeals. Nevertheless, the law at that time was that the circuit court did not have jurisdiction to proceed on the merits of the transferred case while the appeal of the transfer order was pending before an appellate court. See Reeves v. State, 419 So.2d 217 (Ala.1982).””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 907 So. 2d 465 - Baker v. State

2. ““One significant distinction between Bragg II [Bragg v. State, 453 So.2d 756 (Ala.Crim.App.1984)] and Webb’s case now before us is that in Bragg II, in the appellate review of the transfer order (Bragg I [ 416 So.2d 715 (Ala.1982)]), this Court affirmed the affirmance by the Court of Criminal Appeals of the transfer order, while in Webb’s case, in the appellate review of the transfer order, we reversed the affirmance by the Court of Criminal Appeals of the transfer order because it did not comply with § 12-15 — 34(d), Ex parte Anonymous, [ 466 So.2d 81 (Ala.1984)]. A more precisely pertinent distinction is that, during the pendency of an appeal of a transfer order, merely receiving but not adjudicating an indictment (Bragg IT) is vastly different from actually adjudicating the indictment (Webb).””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 907 So. 2d 465 - Baker v. State