878 So. 2d 1208 - Ingram v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
July 2016
most recently cited
5 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 471 So. 2d 485 - Faircloth v. State · 471 So. 2d 493 - Ex Parte Faircloth · 358 So. 2d 1040 - Bankston v. State · 557 So. 2d 848 - Ward v. State · 602 So. 2d 462 - O'NEAL 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“' McCart v. State , 765 So.2d 21 , 27 (Ala.Crim.App. 1999), quoting Breckenridge v. State , 628 So.2d 1012 , 1018 (Ala.Crim.App. 1993). See also Ex parte Fitkin , 781 So.2d 182 , 183 (Ala. 2000) (`The trial court's denial of a motion for a judgment of acquittal must be reviewed by determining whether there was legal evidence before the court at the time the motion was made from which, by fair inference, the defendant could be found guilty.').”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Foye v. State · Evans v. State
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.