Hulsey v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The trial court erred in granting the State’s motion to dismiss Hulsey’s appeal to the circuit court for a trial de novo. ‘Except as provided in Section 12-12-72 and in subsection (e) of Section 12-15-120, all appeals from final judgments of the district court shall be to the circuit court for trial de novo.’ § 12-12-71, Ala.Code 1975. The statute and rule governing an appeal from a municipal or district court for a trial de novo provide for dismissal of the appeal only upon the appellant’s request or upon the appellant’s failure to appear for trial. See Rule 30.5(b), Ala.R.Crim.P., and § 12-14-70(e) and (g), Ala.Code 1975. We can find no authority permitting the dismissal of a de novo appeal on motion of the State other than for failure of the appellant to appear at trial. 1 “ ‘The plain wording of both § 12-14-70[ (e) and (g), Ala.Code 1975,] and Rule 30.5(b)[, Ala.R.Crim.P.,] supports the appellant’s contention that the circuit court has authority to dismiss a de novo appeal only when the defendant fails to appear for trial.’ ” ’ Mayes v. State, 710 So.2d 537, 538 (Ala.Crim.App.1997) (failure to appear at ‘plea day’) (emphasis omittedXquoting McLemore v. State, 686 So.2d 492, 493 (Ala.Crim.App.1996), quoting in turn Riddle v. State, 641 So.2d 1316, 1318 (Ala.Crim.App.1994)).””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. City of Mobile v. Fagan · 254 So. 3d 916 - McCullough v. State

2. “In adult abuse cases, a defendant’s history of threatening or violent conduct involving the same victim can be especially probative. Considered in isolation, a defendant’s outward conduct may be ambiguous or entirely lawful. Only by showing that history can the state establish the justifiable inference that a defendant’s charged conduct was in fact intended to engender fear on the part of the victim and that defendant knew that it was likely to do so.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Taylor