enacting clause in Alabama

2003The supreme court held that the general provision of the statute requiring that uninsured-motorist coverage be offered was qualified by a proviso that the "named insured" shall have the right to reject such coverage and that "[a] proviso limits or modifies the enacting clause, and should be strictly construed in accord with the general purpose of the enactment." 292 Ala. at 105 , 289 So.2d at 608 .

2003The supreme court held that the general provision of the statute requiring that uninsured-motorist coverage be offered was qualified by a proviso that the "named insured" shall have the right to reject such coverage and that "[a] proviso limits or modifies the enacting clause, and should be strictly construed in accord with the general purpose of the enactment." 292 Ala. at 105 , 289 So.2d at 608 .

2013See Newton v. City of Tuscaloosa, 251 Ala. 209, 218 , 36 So.2d 487, 494 (1948) (“both the preamble and the title of an act may be looked to in order to remove ambiguities and uncertainty in the enacting clause”); United States v. McCrory, 119 F. 861 (5th Cir.1903) (if the act is free from doubt or ambiguity, the title of an act may not be resorted to in construing the act); and Bartlett v. Morris, 9 Port. 266 (Ala.1839) (the title of an act may explain what is doubtful, but it cannot control what is contained in the body of the act).’ ” City of Bessemer v. McClain, 957 So.2d 1061, 1084 (Ala.20

2006See Newton v. City of Tuscaloosa, 251 Ala. 209, 218 , 36 So.2d 487, 494 (1948) (`both the preamble and the title of an act may be looked to in order to remove ambiguities and uncertainty in the enacting clause'); United States v. McCrory, 119 F. 861 (5th Cir.1903) (if the act is free from doubt or ambiguity, the title of an act may not be resorted to in construing the act); and Bartlett v. Morris, 9 Port. 266 (Ala.1839) (the title of an act may explain what is doubtful, but it cannot control what is contained in the body of the act)." Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. Seven Up Bottling Co. of Jasp

1932Clark v. State, 19 Ala. 552 ; Carson v. State, 69 Ala. 235 ; Bogan v. State, 84 Ala. 449 , 4 So. 355 ; Grattan v. State, 71 Ala. 344 ; Sims v. State, 135 Ala. 61 , 33 So. 162 .

1887These particular cases were in the nature of provisos, rather than of exceptions incorporated in the enacting clause, and 'it, therefore, was unnecessary for the -indictment to negative them by averring, in advance,, that the defendant did not come within the operation of these excepted cases . — Carson v. State, 69 Ala. 235 ; Britton v. State, 77 Ala. 202 . 3.

2013See Newton v. City of Tuscaloosa, 251 Ala. 209, 218 , 36 So.2d 487, 494 (1948) (“both the preamble and the title of an act may be looked to in order to remove ambiguities and uncertainty in the enacting clause”); United States v. McCrory, 119 F. 861 (5th Cir.1903) (if the act is free from doubt or ambiguity, the title of an act may not be resorted to in construing the act); and Bartlett v. Morris, 9 Port. 266 (Ala.1839) (the title of an act may explain what is doubtful, but it cannot control what is contained in the body of the act).’ ” City of Bessemer v. McClain, 957 So.2d 1061, 1084 (Ala.20

2006See Newton v. City of Tuscaloosa, 251 Ala. 209, 218 , 36 So.2d 487, 494 (1948) (`both the preamble and the title of an act may be looked to in order to remove ambiguities and uncertainty in the enacting clause'); United States v. McCrory, 119 F. 861 (5th Cir.1903) (if the act is free from doubt or ambiguity, the title of an act may not be resorted to in construing the act); and Bartlett v. Morris, 9 Port. 266 (Ala.1839) (the title of an act may explain what is doubtful, but it cannot control what is contained in the body of the act)." Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. Seven Up Bottling Co. of Jasp

1996The exception concerning personal injury actions would swallow the rule that venue of actions against corporations lies in any county in which the corporation does business by agent if this Court held that all “personal” actions are covered by the proviso, which uses the term “personal injury.” Mobile Liners, Inc. v. McConnell, 220 Ala. 562 , 126 So. 626 (1930) (any doubts about exception or proviso in statute must be judged on assumption that rule is broader than exception).

1996The exception concerning personal injury actions would swallow the rule that venue of actions against corporations lies in any county in which the corporation does business by agent if this Court held that all “personal” actions are covered by the proviso, which uses the term “personal injury.” Mobile Liners, Inc. v. McConnell, 220 Ala. 562 , 126 So. 626 (1930) (any doubts about exception or proviso in statute must be judged on assumption that rule is broader than exception).

1973In Britton v. State, 77 Ala. 202 , this court held that where the offense is a general one, and there is no exception incorporated in the Act which constitutes a part of the description or definition of the offense, then it matters not whether these excusatory matters exempting one from the provisions of the Act be given, or not given, in the same clause or section of the Act prohibiting the general Act, i.e., in the enacting clause.

1887These particular cases were in the nature of provisos, rather than of exceptions incorporated in the enacting clause, and 'it, therefore, was unnecessary for the -indictment to negative them by averring, in advance,, that the defendant did not come within the operation of these excepted cases . — Carson v. State, 69 Ala. 235 ; Britton v. State, 77 Ala. 202 . 3.

1969In Harris v. State, 248 Ala. 389 , 27 So.2d 797 , the Supreme Court stated as follows: “The general rule is that an indictment which follows the language of the statute, denouncing a crime or misdemeanor, specifying the elements thereof and containing no exception in the clause defining the offense, need not negative matters which may be set up as a defense under other statutes or under provisos in the same statute.” See also Dorgan v. State, 29 Ala.App. 362 , 196 So. 160 where Judge, now Mr. Justice Simpson, cites authorities running all the way back to Clark v. State, 19 Ala. 552 , as well a

1932Clark v. State, 19 Ala. 552 ; Carson v. State, 69 Ala. 235 ; Bogan v. State, 84 Ala. 449 , 4 So. 355 ; Grattan v. State, 71 Ala. 344 ; Sims v. State, 135 Ala. 61 , 33 So. 162 .

1886As a general rule, provisos are strictly construed, so as to “ take no case out- of the enacting clause, which is not fairly within the terms of the proviso.” — Potter’s Dwarris on Stat. & Const. 118, note 11; U. S. v. Dickson, 15 Pet. 141 .

1874When this is the case, to use the language of Judge Story, in the case just above referred to, “ we are led to the general rule of law, which has always prevailed, and become consecrated almost as a maxim in the interpretation of statutes, that where the enacting clause is general in its language and objects, and a proviso is afterwards introduced, that proviso is construed strictly, and takes no case out of the enacting clause, which does not fall fairly within its terms.” U. S. v. Dickson, 15 Pet. 141, 165 .

2007Only the Legislature, within constitutional limits, has the authority to alter the jurisdiction of the circuit courts." 899 So.2d at 972 .

2007Only the Legislature, within constitutional limits, has the authority to alter the jurisdiction of the circuit courts." 899 So.2d at 972 .

2000There must be a substantial relationship between the act and the eradication of the evil." Lankford , 416 So.2d at 1001 .

1991Touart v. American Cyanamid Co. , 250 Ala. 551 , 555 , 35 So.2d 484 , 486 (1948); Cooper v. State , 28 Ala. App. 422 , 425 , 187 So. 500 , 502 (1939), cert. denied , 237 Ala. 533 , 187 So. 503 (1939); 82 C.J.S.

1991Touart v. American Cyanamid Co. , 250 Ala. 551 , 555 , 35 So.2d 484 , 486 (1948); Cooper v. State , 28 Ala. App. 422 , 425 , 187 So. 500 , 502 (1939), cert. denied , 237 Ala. 533 , 187 So. 503 (1939); 82 C.J.S.

1989"Therefore, to make out a prima facie case, the State must prove that the accused was in possession of more than 2.2 pounds of marijuana." Mulhern v. State , 494 So.2d 787 , 789 (Ala.Crim.App. 1986) (emphasis in the original).

1989See Grattan v. State , 71 Ala. 344 (1882); Davis v. State , 39 Ala. 521 (1865).

1978Bartlett v. Morris , 9 Port. 266 (1839); Hamrick v. Thompson , 276 Ala. 605 , 165 So.2d 386 (1964).

1978Bartlett v. Morris , 9 Port. 266 (1839); Hamrick v. Thompson , 276 Ala. 605 , 165 So.2d 386 (1964).

1973State v. Dixie Dairies Corp., 268 Ala. 480 , 107 So.2d 896 (1959).

1973State v. Dixie Dairies Corp., 268 Ala. 480 , 107 So.2d 896 (1959).

1973The Court in Johnson v. People, supra, cited State v. Abbey, 29 Vt. 60, 67 , 80 P. 133 , Am.Dec. 754, as follows: “ . . . ‘In saying that an exception must be negatived when made in the enacting clause, reference is not made to sections of the statute, as they are divided in the act; nor is it meant that, because the exceptions are contained in the section containing the enactment, it must for that reason be negatived. * * * The question is whether the exception is so incorporated with and becomes a part of the enactment as to constitute a part of the definition or description of the offense.

1973The question is one not only of pleading, but of evidence; and, where the exceptions must be negatived in the indictment, the allegations must be proved by the prosecution, though the proof may involve a negative.’ . . . ” See also Hall v. State, 291 Ala. 397 , 281 So.2d 662 .

1973The question is one not only of pleading, but of evidence; and, where the exceptions must be negatived in the indictment, the allegations must be proved by the prosecution, though the proof may involve a negative.’ . . . ” See also Hall v. State, 291 Ala. 397 , 281 So.2d 662 .

1969In Harris v. State, 248 Ala. 389 , 27 So.2d 797 , the Supreme Court stated as follows: “The general rule is that an indictment which follows the language of the statute, denouncing a crime or misdemeanor, specifying the elements thereof and containing no exception in the clause defining the offense, need not negative matters which may be set up as a defense under other statutes or under provisos in the same statute.” See also Dorgan v. State, 29 Ala.App. 362 , 196 So. 160 where Judge, now Mr. Justice Simpson, cites authorities running all the way back to Clark v. State, 19 Ala. 552 , as well a

1969In Harris v. State, 248 Ala. 389 , 27 So.2d 797 , the Supreme Court stated as follows: “The general rule is that an indictment which follows the language of the statute, denouncing a crime or misdemeanor, specifying the elements thereof and containing no exception in the clause defining the offense, need not negative matters which may be set up as a defense under other statutes or under provisos in the same statute.” See also Dorgan v. State, 29 Ala.App. 362 , 196 So. 160 where Judge, now Mr. Justice Simpson, cites authorities running all the way back to Clark v. State, 19 Ala. 552 , as well a

1969In Harris v. State, 248 Ala. 389 , 27 So.2d 797 , the Supreme Court stated as follows: “The general rule is that an indictment which follows the language of the statute, denouncing a crime or misdemeanor, specifying the elements thereof and containing no exception in the clause defining the offense, need not negative matters which may be set up as a defense under other statutes or under provisos in the same statute.” See also Dorgan v. State, 29 Ala.App. 362 , 196 So. 160 where Judge, now Mr. Justice Simpson, cites authorities running all the way back to Clark v. State, 19 Ala. 552 , as well a

1969In Harris v. State, 248 Ala. 389 , 27 So.2d 797 , the Supreme Court stated as follows: “The general rule is that an indictment which follows the language of the statute, denouncing a crime or misdemeanor, specifying the elements thereof and containing no exception in the clause defining the offense, need not negative matters which may be set up as a defense under other statutes or under provisos in the same statute.” See also Dorgan v. State, 29 Ala.App. 362 , 196 So. 160 where Judge, now Mr. Justice Simpson, cites authorities running all the way back to Clark v. State, 19 Ala. 552 , as well a

1955Jefferson County v. Gulf Refining Co., 202 Ala. 510 , 80 So. 798 .

1955Jefferson County v. Gulf Refining Co., 202 Ala. 510 , 80 So. 798 .

1948City of Mobile v. Board of Revenue, 202 Ala. 303 , 80 So. 368 ); the whole act clearly discloses the designation as well as the proposed setup of said hospital.

1948City of Mobile v. Board of Revenue, 202 Ala. 303 , 80 So. 368 ); the whole act clearly discloses the designation as well as the proposed setup of said hospital.