Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 871 So. 2d 106 - Moore v. State

871 So. 2d 106 - Moore v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2003

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
2
states following
July 2016
most recently cited

14 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Santobello v. New York · 659 So. 2d 998 - Hunt v. State · Pender v. State · 864 So. 2d 395 - Madden v. State · 493 So. 2d 1362 - Ex Parte Otinger

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

  1. “"Regardless of whether the defendant has begun serving the minimum period of confinement ordered under the provisions of subsection (a), the court shall retain jurisdiction and authority throughout said period to suspend that portion of the minimum sentence that remains and place the defendant on probation, notwithstanding any provision of the law to the contrary and the court may revoke or modify any condition of probation or may change the period of probation."”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““Therefore, we must remand this case for the circuit court to conduct another sentencing hearing and to reconsider the execution of [Hooks’s] 20-year sentence. Because the 20-year sentence was valid, the circuit court may not change it. See Wood v. State, 602 So.2d 1195 (Ala.Crim.App.1992). However, the court may either split the sentence in compliance with § 15-18-8, i.e., ordering no more than 5 years and no less than 3 years in confinement followed by a definite period of probation, or, if it determines that splitting the sentence is no longer appropriate, it may reinstate the full 20-year sentence.””
    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.