885 So. 2d 191 - McGahee v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 60 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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Alabama courts have consistently held that even when a trial court adopts verbatim a party's proposed order, the findings of fact and conclusions of law are those of the trial court and they may be reversed only if they are clearly erroneous.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Brownfield v. State · Hyde v. State

2. “`[I]f the circuit court is correct for any reason, even though it may not be the stated reason, we will not reverse its denial of the petition.'”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Saunders v. State · Whitman v. State

3. ““Contrary to McGahee’s assertions, the trial court was not obliged to allow him to proceed ex parte in his request for funds to pursue his postconviction claims. McGahee’s reliance on Ake v. Oklahoma[, 470 U.S. 68 (1985),] is misplaced because postconviction proceedings pursuant to Rule 32, Ala.R.Crim.P., are not criminal in nature. McGahee, himself, pursued this discretionary legal action against the State of Alabama, and the action is civil in nature. See Hamm v. State, 913 So.2d 460, 471 (Ala.Crim.App.2002), and cases cited therein. This Court held that the fundamental fairness mandated by the Due Process Clause does not require the trial court to approve funds for experts at a postconviction proceeding. Hubbard v. State, 584 So.2d 895, 900 (Ala.Crim.App.1991). Moreover, this Court has specifically held that Ake is not applicable in post-conviction proceedings. Ford v. State, 630 So.2d 111, 112 (Ala.Crim.App.1991), aff'd, 630 So.2d 113 (Ala.1993). See also Williams v. State, 783 So.2d 108 (Ala.Crim.App.2000), aff' d, 662 So.2d 929 (Ala.1992)(table).””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. James v. State · 51 So. 3d 1094 - Ingram v. State