985 So. 2d 441 - State v. Isbell’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
1
cited by 1 later decisions
1
states following
November 2007
most recently cited
1 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on State v. Balams · 955 So. 2d 476 - Ex Parte State · 794 So. 2d 1089 - Ex Parte Smith · 879 So. 2d 1166 - Ex Parte McNabb
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"the primary issue presented by the State's petition requires a decision regarding the extent of the discovery obligation imposed upon the State by the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure and applicable caselaw. That is not an issue for adjudication in a declaratory-judgment action and a subsequent appeal to this court; that is an issue for adjudication by the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals on a mandamus petition because it falls within that court's appellate jurisdiction. See Ala. Const. 1901, Amend. No. 328, § 6.03(d)."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“turn over to [Isbell] the complete history of malfunctions, repairs or reports of malfunction on the Draeger Device ARMM-0423”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.