Marshall v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 18 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"We hereby decline effectively to amend Rule 32[, Ala. R.Crim. P.]; we reaffirm our holdings in Ex parte Weeks [, 611 So.2d 259 (Ala.1992),] and Ex parte Johnson [, 806 So.2d 1195 (Ala.2001)]; and we reiterate that the writ of mandamus is `the only remedy available' to those, who like Marshall, through no fault of their own, fail to receive notice of the dismissal of their Rule 32 petition in time to effect a timely appeal therefrom. The Court of Criminal Appeals, therefore, erred in relying upon dicta in Ex parte Fountain, [ 842 So.2d 726 (Ala.2001),] which purported to affirm as to an issue that was not before this Court, and the derivative Brooks v. State [, 892 So.2d 969 (Ala.Crim.App.2002),] to hold that the circuit court properly granted Marshall's request in his second Rule 32 petition for an out-of-time appeal from his first Rule 32 petition. The appropriate remedy for Marshall is to petition for a writ of mandamus."”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Ex Parte Vs · V.S. v. State

2. “[t]he petitioner failed to appeal within the prescribed time from the conviction or sentence itself or from the dismissal or denial of a petition previously filed pursuant to this rule and that failure was without fault on the petitioner's part.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Ex Parte Vs · 910 So. 2d 146 - Loggins v. State

3. “" Subsection (f) contemplates the appeal from a conviction or sentence, but not an appeal from an adverse ruling in a collateral proceeding (such as a Rule 32 petition). There is, therefore, no ground under Rule 32.1 through which Marshall, and those similarly situated, may petition for an out-of-time appeal from the denial of a Rule 32 petition. "”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 902 So. 2d 715 - Melson v. State · 926 So. 2d 339 - Ex Parte Bonner