Burl v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 607 So. 2d 369 - Hull v. State · 689 So. 2d 23 - Evans v. Waddell · Kirby v. State · 518 So. 2d 714 - King Mines Resort, Inc. v. MALACHI M. & MINERALS, INC. · Lockhart v. Phenix City Inv. Co.
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The Court's holding in Kirby implicitly overruled this Court's holding in Robinson v. State , 837 So.2d 882 (Ala.Crim.App. 2002) (Shaw, J., concurring in the result), that Rule 32, Ala. R.Crim. P., is the proper avenue for seeking implementation of § 13A-5-9.1 . . ."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Prestwood v. State“"By requiring in § 13A-5-9.1 that the provisions of § 13A-5-9 are to be applied retroactively, however, the Legislature vested jurisdiction in the sentencing judge or the presiding judge to reopen a case more than 30 days after a defendant has been sentenced."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Prestwood 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.