991 So. 2d 313 - McNabb v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 39 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Other states and federal courts are not in agreement as to whether the 'cumulative effect' analysis applies to Strickland claims. As the Supreme Court of North Dakota noted in Garcia v. State , 678 N.W.2d 568 , 578 (N.D.2004) : " 'Garcia argues that even if trial counsel's individual acts or omissions are insufficient to establish he was prejudiced, the cumulative effect was substantial enough to meet Strickland's test. See Williams v. Washington , 59 F.3d 673 , 682 (7th Cir.1995) ("In making this showing, a petitioner may demonstrate that the cumulative effect of counsel's individual acts or omissions was substantial enough to meet Strickland's test"); but see Scott v. Jones , 915 F.2d 1188 , 1191 (8th Cir.1990) ("cumulative error does not call for habeas relief, as each habeas claim must stand or fall on its own").' "See also Holland v. State , 250 Ga.App. 24 , 28, 550 S.E.2d 433 , 437 (2001) ('Because the so-called cumulative error doctrine is inapplicable, each claim of inadequacy must be examined independently of other claims, using the two-prong standard of Strickland v. Washington .' (footnote omitted)); Carl v. State , 234 Ga.App. 61 , 65, 506 S.E.2d 207 , 212 (1998) ('Georgia does not recognize the cumulative error rule.'); Fisher v. Angelone , 163 F.3d 835 , 852 (4th Cir.1998) ('Not surprisingly, it has long been the practice of this Court to individually assess claims under Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). See, e.g.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Marshall v. State · Scott v. State

2. “[I]t is well settled that ‘new issues may not be raised for the first time in a reply brief.’ McCall v. State, 565 So.2d 1163, 1167 (Ala.Crim.App.1990). 'As a general rule, issues raised for the first time in a reply brief are not properly subject to appellate review.’ Ex parte Powell, 796 So.2d 434, 436 (Ala.2001).’’).. It is well-settled that”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bryant v. State · Ervin v. State

3. ““ ‘An appellee can defend the trial court’s ruling with an argument not raised below, for this Court “will affirm the judgment appealed from if supported on any valid legal ground.” Tucker v. Nichols, 431 So.2d 1263, 1265 (Ala.1983). There is a rather obvious fundamental difference in upholding the trial court’s judgment and reversing it; this Court will not reverse the trial court’s judgment on a ground raised for the first time on appeal, Costarides v. Miller, 374 So.2d 1335 (Ala.1979), even though it affirms judgments on bases not asserted in the trial court, Bank of the Southeast v. Koslin, 380 So.2d 826 (Ala.1980). This difference is predicated on the “long-standing, well-established rule that [in order to secure a reversal] the appellant has an affirmative duty of showing error upon the record.” Tucker v. Nichols, supra, at 1264 .’ “Smith v. Equifax Servs., Inc., 537 So.2d 463, 465 (Ala.1988) (emphasis on ‘affirms’ original; other emphasis added). See also Laster v. Norfolk Southern Ry., [Ms. 1050532, Jan. 5, 2007] — So.2d — (Ala.2007);[ 5 ] and Blackmon v. Brazil, 895 So.2d 900 (Ala.2004). In Liberty National Life Insurance Co. v. University of Alabama Health Senices Foundation, P.C., 881 So.2d 1013 (Ala.2003), the Alabama Supreme Court identified certain exceptions to the application of the affirm-for-any-reason rule, stating: “ ‘Nonetheless, this Court will affirm the trial court on any valid legal ground presented by the record, regardless of whether that ground was”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bush v. State