913 So. 2d 501 - Mitchell v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
16
cited by 16 later decisions
1
states following
August 2018
most recently cited
16 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 47 Ala. App. 65 - Ireland v. State · Ex Parte Frith · 570 So. 2d 703 - Newsome v. State · 601 So. 2d 210 - Pate v. State · 857 So. 2d 793 - Ex Parte Coulliette
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"`To preserve an issue for appellate review, the issue must be timely raised and specifically presented to the trial court and an adverse ruling obtained.' Mitchell v. State, 913 So.2d 501, 505 (Ala.Crim.App.2005). The purpose of requiring an issue to be preserved for review is to allow the trial court the first opportunity to correct any error. See, e.g., Ex parte Coulliette, 857 So.2d 793 (Ala.2003)."”
6 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Ex Parte Malone · J.S. v. J.C.
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.