Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
City of Pike Road v. City of Montgomery
To the contrary, this Court has indicated that the subject matter of the statutes being analyzed need only be “related,” “similar,” or the “same general[ly].” See James, 729 So.2d at 267 (“In determining legislative intent, a court should examine related statutes.”); Ex parte Johnson, 474 So.2d 715, 717 (Ala. 1985) (“It is a fundamental principle of statutory construction that statutes covering the same or similar subject matter should be construed in pari materia.”)', and Willis v. Kincaid, 983 So.2d 1100, 1103 (Ala.2007) (“ ‘[Sjtatutes must be construed in pari materi…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Leroy Bandy and David Russell v. City of Birmingham.
Our obligation is to construe [the] provisions “in favor of each other to form one harmonious plan,” if it is possible to do so.’ Opinion of the Justices No. 334, 599 So.2d 1166, 1168 (Ala.1992) (quoting Ex parte Coffee County Comm’n, 583 So.2d 985, 988 (Ala.1991)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Alfa Mut. Ins. Co. v. City of Mobile
Our obligation is to construe provisions `in favor of each other to form a harmonious plan,' if it is possible to do so." Opinion of the Justices No. 334, 599 So.2d 1166, 1168 (Ala.1992) (citations omitted). [6] Based on the foregoing, I must respectfully dissent. [7] COBB, C.J., concurs.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ex Parte Miller, Hamilton, Snider & Odom, LLC
Our obligation is to construe provisions `in favor of each other to form a harmonious plan,' if it is possible to do so." Opinion of the Justices No. 334, 599 So.2d 1166, 1168 (Ala.1992) (quoting Ex parte Coffee County Comm'n, 583 So.2d 985, 988 (Ala.1991)).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ex Parte Virginia D. Condra Willis. (Re Virginia D. Condra Willis
v.
State).
v.
State).
1900086.
Supreme Court of Alabama.
Jun 5, 1992.
Hoyt L. Baugh, Jr., Rainsville, for petitioner., Don Siegelman, Atty. Gen., and Beth Slate Poe, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Adams, Hornsby, Almon, Steagall, Ingram.
Published
ADAMS, Justice.
Our denial of the writ is without prejudice to the defendant’s right to raise in a Rule 32, A.R.Crim.P., petition the issues she has attempted to raise in her certiorari petition.
WRIT DENIED.
HORNSBY, C.J., and ALMON, STEAGALL and INGRAM, JJ., concur.