known rule in Alabama

1981Section 40-23-4 (15) exempts from sales tax "the gross proceeds of the sale or sales of tangible personal property to county and city school boards, independent school boards and all educational institutions and agencies of the state of Alabama, the counties within the state or any incorporated municipality of the state of Alabama." Section 40-23-62 (16) exempts from use tax "tangible personal property stored, used or consumed by county and city school boards, independent school boards and all educational institutions and agencies of the state of Alabama, the counties within the state or any i

1981Section 40-23-4 (15) exempts from sales tax "the gross proceeds of the sale or sales of tangible personal property to county and city school boards, independent school boards and all educational institutions and agencies of the state of Alabama, the counties within the state or any incorporated municipality of the state of Alabama." Section 40-23-62 (16) exempts from use tax "tangible personal property stored, used or consumed by county and city school boards, independent school boards and all educational institutions and agencies of the state of Alabama, the counties within the state or any i

1998Further, under FELA, a valid release "must reflect a bargained-for settlement of a known claim for a specific injury, as contrasted with an attempt to extinguish potential future claims the employee might have arising from injuries known or unknown by him." Babbitt v. Norfolk & Western Ry., 104 F.3d 89 , 93 (6th Cir.1997).

1997Id.; Citizens Bank of Moulton v. Jones, 671 So.2d 737 (Ala.Civ.

1997Id.; Citizens Bank of Moulton v. Jones , 671 So.2d 737 (Ala.Civ.App. 1995).

1993This is known as the doctrine of multiple admissibility." Robinson v. State , 361 So.2d 379 , 381 (Ala.Cr.App. 1978), cert. denied, 361 So.2d 383 (Ala. 1978).

1993This is known as the doctrine of multiple admissibility." Robinson v. State , 361 So.2d 379 , 381 (Ala.Cr.App. 1978), cert. denied, 361 So.2d 383 (Ala. 1978).

1984Casey v. Jones , 410 So.2d 5 (Ala. 1981).

1981State v. Woodham , 288 Ala. 608 , 264 So.2d 166 (1972); Cumbaa v. Town of Geneva , 235 Ala. 423 , 179 So. 227 (1938).

1981State v. Woodham , 288 Ala. 608 , 264 So.2d 166 (1972); Cumbaa v. Town of Geneva , 235 Ala. 423 , 179 So. 227 (1938).

1981Section 40-23-4 (15) exempts from sales tax "the gross proceeds of the sale or sales of tangible personal property to county and city school boards, independent school boards and all educational institutions and agencies of the state of Alabama, the counties within the state or any incorporated municipality of the state of Alabama." Section 40-23-62 (16) exempts from use tax "tangible personal property stored, used or consumed by county and city school boards, independent school boards and all educational institutions and agencies of the state of Alabama, the counties within the state or any i

1981Section 40-23-4 (15) exempts from sales tax "the gross proceeds of the sale or sales of tangible personal property to county and city school boards, independent school boards and all educational institutions and agencies of the state of Alabama, the counties within the state or any incorporated municipality of the state of Alabama." Section 40-23-62 (16) exempts from use tax "tangible personal property stored, used or consumed by county and city school boards, independent school boards and all educational institutions and agencies of the state of Alabama, the counties within the state or any i

1981State v. Woodham , 288 Ala. 608 , 264 So.2d 166 (1972); Cumbaa v. Town of Geneva , 235 Ala. 423 , 179 So. 227 (1938).

1981State v. Woodham , 288 Ala. 608 , 264 So.2d 166 (1972); Cumbaa v. Town of Geneva , 235 Ala. 423 , 179 So. 227 (1938).

1978Caylor v. Caylor, 344 So.2d 173 (Ala.Civ.App.1977).

1978McElroy , supra, § 12.01, p. 11; Rollings v. State , 160 Ala. 82 , 49 So. 329 (1909). "(W)hen an evidentiary fact is offered for one purpose, and becomes admissible by satisfying all the rules applicable to it in that capacity, it is not inadmissible because it does not satisfy the rules applicable to it in some other capacity and because the jury might improperly consider it in the latter capacity.

1978McElroy , supra, § 12.01, p. 11; Rollings v. State , 160 Ala. 82 , 49 So. 329 (1909). "(W)hen an evidentiary fact is offered for one purpose, and becomes admissible by satisfying all the rules applicable to it in that capacity, it is not inadmissible because it does not satisfy the rules applicable to it in some other capacity and because the jury might improperly consider it in the latter capacity.

1975Brand v. State, 242 Ala. 15 , 6 So.2d 446 .

1975Brand v. State, 242 Ala. 15 , 6 So.2d 446 .

1974Floyd v. Andress, 246 Ala. 301 , 20 So.2d 331 (1944); Lost Creek Coal & Mineral Land Co. v. Hendon, 215 Ala. 212 , 110 So. 308 (1926).

1974Floyd v. Andress, 246 Ala. 301 , 20 So.2d 331 (1944); Lost Creek Coal & Mineral Land Co. v. Hendon, 215 Ala. 212 , 110 So. 308 (1926).

1974“It is a well known rule of statutory construction that the word ‘may’ when used in a statute conferring power on a public official or agency can properly be construed as mandatory when the rights of the public are involved, Fuller v. State, 31 Ala.App. 324 , 16 So.2d 428 (1944).

1974“It is a well known rule of statutory construction that the word ‘may’ when used in a statute conferring power on a public official or agency can properly be construed as mandatory when the rights of the public are involved, Fuller v. State, 31 Ala.App. 324 , 16 So.2d 428 (1944).

1974Floyd v. Andress, 246 Ala. 301 , 20 So.2d 331 (1944); Lost Creek Coal & Mineral Land Co. v. Hendon, 215 Ala. 212 , 110 So. 308 (1926).

1974Floyd v. Andress, 246 Ala. 301 , 20 So.2d 331 (1944); Lost Creek Coal & Mineral Land Co. v. Hendon, 215 Ala. 212 , 110 So. 308 (1926).

1972The appellant argues that the court erred in overruling her ob j ections to this evidence -under the well known doctrine laid down in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 .

1972The appellant argues that the court erred in overruling her ob j ections to this evidence -under the well known doctrine laid down in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 .

1972In Western Railway of Alabama v. Brown, 280 Ala. 543 , 196 So.2d 392 , the defendant’s testimony disputed plaintiff’s evidence that the railroad car in the picture “ ‘looks just like the same’ ” passenger car from which she alighted when she was injured, and that “ ‘It was about the same place on the landing’ where she got off the train”.

1972In Western Railway of Alabama v. Brown, 280 Ala. 543 , 196 So.2d 392 , the defendant’s testimony disputed plaintiff’s evidence that the railroad car in the picture “ ‘looks just like the same’ ” passenger car from which she alighted when she was injured, and that “ ‘It was about the same place on the landing’ where she got off the train”.

1971Appellant argues in support of Assignment of Error No. 3 that the court erred in admitting the signed statement of defendant made at the jail and testified to by witness Tolbert because it was not shown to be voluntary under the well known rule set out in Sanders v. State, 278 Ala. 453 , 179 So.2d 35 ; Lokos v. State, 278 Ala. 586 , 179 So.2d 714 ; Myhand v. State, 259 Ala. 415 , 66 So.2d 544 .

1971Appellant argues in support of Assignment of Error No. 3 that the court erred in admitting the signed statement of defendant made at the jail and testified to by witness Tolbert because it was not shown to be voluntary under the well known rule set out in Sanders v. State, 278 Ala. 453 , 179 So.2d 35 ; Lokos v. State, 278 Ala. 586 , 179 So.2d 714 ; Myhand v. State, 259 Ala. 415 , 66 So.2d 544 .

1971Appellant argues in support of Assignment of Error No. 3 that the court erred in admitting the signed statement of defendant made at the jail and testified to by witness Tolbert because it was not shown to be voluntary under the well known rule set out in Sanders v. State, 278 Ala. 453 , 179 So.2d 35 ; Lokos v. State, 278 Ala. 586 , 179 So.2d 714 ; Myhand v. State, 259 Ala. 415 , 66 So.2d 544 .

1971Appellant argues in support of Assignment of Error No. 3 that the court erred in admitting the signed statement of defendant made at the jail and testified to by witness Tolbert because it was not shown to be voluntary under the well known rule set out in Sanders v. State, 278 Ala. 453 , 179 So.2d 35 ; Lokos v. State, 278 Ala. 586 , 179 So.2d 714 ; Myhand v. State, 259 Ala. 415 , 66 So.2d 544 .

1971Appellant argues in support of Assignment of Error No. 3 that the court erred in admitting the signed statement of defendant made at the jail and testified to by witness Tolbert because it was not shown to be voluntary under the well known rule set out in Sanders v. State, 278 Ala. 453 , 179 So.2d 35 ; Lokos v. State, 278 Ala. 586 , 179 So.2d 714 ; Myhand v. State, 259 Ala. 415 , 66 So.2d 544 .

1971Appellant argues in support of Assignment of Error No. 3 that the court erred in admitting the signed statement of defendant made at the jail and testified to by witness Tolbert because it was not shown to be voluntary under the well known rule set out in Sanders v. State, 278 Ala. 453 , 179 So.2d 35 ; Lokos v. State, 278 Ala. 586 , 179 So.2d 714 ; Myhand v. State, 259 Ala. 415 , 66 So.2d 544 .

1963Brown v. Scheuer, Wise & Co., 210 Ala. 47 , 97 So. 50 .

1963Brown v. Scheuer, Wise & Co., 210 Ala. 47 , 97 So. 50 .

1960Vulcan Life & Accident Insurance Company v. Standifer, 266 Ala. 246 , 97 So.2d 568 .

1960Vulcan Life & Accident Insurance Company v. Standifer, 266 Ala. 246 , 97 So.2d 568 .

1958Savage v. Wolfe, 69 Ala. 569 ; Echols v. State ex rel.

1958Lamar v. Lamar, 263 Ala. 391 (2), 82 So.2d 558 .

1958Lamar v. Lamar, 263 Ala. 391 (2), 82 So.2d 558 .

1956Pritchett v. Wade, 261 Ala. 156 , 73 So.2d 533 ; Halman v. Bullard, 261 Ala. 115 , 73 So.2d 351 ; Sparkman v. Williams, 260 Ala. 472 , 71 So.2d 274 .

1956Pritchett v. Wade, 261 Ala. 156 , 73 So.2d 533 ; Halman v. Bullard, 261 Ala. 115 , 73 So.2d 351 ; Sparkman v. Williams, 260 Ala. 472 , 71 So.2d 274 .

1956Pritchett v. Wade, 261 Ala. 156 , 73 So.2d 533 ; Halman v. Bullard, 261 Ala. 115 , 73 So.2d 351 ; Sparkman v. Williams, 260 Ala. 472 , 71 So.2d 274 .

1956Pritchett v. Wade, 261 Ala. 156 , 73 So.2d 533 ; Halman v. Bullard, 261 Ala. 115 , 73 So.2d 351 ; Sparkman v. Williams, 260 Ala. 472 , 71 So.2d 274 .