If any witness, being summoned, fails to attend, or being summoned with a subpoena duces tecum, fails and refuses to produce the paper or document required to be produced by the subpoena, the commission shall have the right and authority to punish the witness for contempt by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500), or by imprisonment in any county jail in the state for a period not to exceed 30 days, one or both, and in case any witness shall fail to appear or produce any book or document before any judge, clerk of court, or other person having a warrant from the commission, the judge, clerk of court, or other person, must certify the fact to the commission, which may thereupon punish such witness for contempt, as provided in this section.
(Code 1896, §1679; Code 1907, §485; Code 1923, §575; Code 1940, T. 17, §261; §17-15-57; amended and renumbered by Act 2006-570, p. 1331, §83.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
11
cases, 1980–2008 · leading case:
Ex Parte Baxley, 496 So. 2d 688 (Ala. 1986).
Ex Parte Baxley, 496 So. 2d 688 (Ala. 1986).
· cites it 6× “on July 1, 1986, Baxley filed a contest of the primary election with the SDEC pursuant to Code 1975, § 17-16-70. This contest alleged malconduct by Graddick and his campaign, conspiracy, and illegal votesall in violation of Code 1975, § 17-16-71(1), (3), and (5).”
Roper v. Rhodes, 988 So. 2d 471 (Ala. 2008).
· cites it 3× “A procedure for contesting primary and runoff elections is set forth in §§ 17-16-70 through -89, Ala.Code 1975, and § 17-16-71(2) includes the ineligibility of a candidate as a ground for contesting a primary or runoff election.”
Wood v. Booth, 990 So. 2d 314 (Ala. 2008).
· cites it 4× “A procedure for contesting primary and runoff elections is set forth in §§ 17-16-70 to -89 [currently §§ 17-13-70 to -89], Ala.”
Ex Parte Graddick, 495 So. 2d 1367 (Ala. 1986).
“The legislature has done so, and those statutes are now codified at § 17-16-70, et seq., Code 1975. These laws vest the political parties with authority to conduct primary elections and with jurisdiction to decide contests of those elections.”
Bryan v. Hubbard, 6 So. 3d 491 (Ala. 2008).
· cites it 2× “This Court held that, because Roper had not pursued an election contest of the primary election or the runoff election as then provided for in § 17-16-70 to -89 (now §§ 17-13-70 to -89), Ala.”
McAdory v. Alabama Democratic Party, 729 So. 2d 310 (Ala. 1999).
· cites it 3× “On June 9, 1998, pursuant to § 17-16-70, Ala.Code 1975, McAdory filed a “Statement of Contest” with the Alabama Democratic Party.”
Curry v. Baker, 802 F.2d 1302 (11th Cir. 1986).
“Ala.Code §§ 17-16-70 through 17-16-89. In discharging that responsibility the party committee exercises powers “such as those conferred on a court of special and limited jurisdiction.”
Graddick v. Baker, 496 So. 2d 688 (Ala. 1986).
· cites it 6× “on July 1, 1986, Baxley filed a contest of the primary election with the SDEC pursuant to Code 1975, § 17-16-70. This contest alleged maleon-duct by Graddick and his campaign, conspiracy, and illegal votes — all in violation of Code 1975, § 17-16-71(1), (3), and (5).”
Connors v. Bennett, 202 F. Supp. 2d 1308 (M.D. Ala. 2002).
· cites it 4× “…prior to the primary election. The same ground of non-eligibility may be raised in a post-election contest. See Ala.Code §§ 17-16-70 and 17-16-71.”
Johnson v. Roberson, 682 So. 2d 58 (Ala. 1996).
· cites it 4× “” Ala.Code 1975, § 17-16-70. Cf. § 17-16-80.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.