detailed analysis in Alabama

2015Ponder claims, however, that he had no malicious intent in taking such action and that “he did not know there might have been any evidence that could be useful to LFPOA on its counterclaim.” In support of this argument, Ponder cites Walker v. City of Huntsville, 62 So.3d 474, 495 (Ala.2010), which provides: “In Vesta [Fire Insurance Corp. v. Milam & Co. Construction Inc., 901 So.2d 84 (Ala.2004) ], this Court applied the standards [regarding a spoliation claim] and, as part of a detailed analysis, stated: “ ‘The defendants do not argue that Vesta and Wausau acted with malicious intent in decid

2015In Walker v. City of Huntsville, 62 So.3d 474, 495 (Ala.2010), our supreme court held: “In Vesta [Fire Insurance Corp. v. Milam & Co. Construction, Inc., 901 So.2d 84 (Ala.2004)], this Court applied the standards [regarding a spoliation claim] and, as part of a detailed analysis, stated: “ ‘The defendants do not argue that Vesta and Wausau acted with malicious intent in deciding what evidence to preserve, and the record, when viewed most favorably to ¡Vesta and Wausau ... reflects at most honest error in judgment and/or simple negligence.

2024Id.

2024Id.

2017App. 1996), which has similar facts, and the case of Ferguson v. Critopoulos , 163 So.3d 330 (Ala. 2014), which contains a detailed analysis of the omitted spouse statute, and the enumeration of several factors which a court is given discretion to consider in weighing a claim under the omitted spouse statute, including the following factors which the Court has specifically considered and afforded weight, viz: (1) inter vivos transfer *206 by R.E. consisting of the work on Edwyna's house; (2) the value of the work on Edwyna's house; (3) the value of the survivorship accounts which passed to Edw

2017App. 1996), which has similar facts, and the case of Ferguson v. Critopoulos , 163 So.3d 330 (Ala. 2014), which contains a detailed analysis of the omitted spouse statute, and the enumeration of several factors which a court is given discretion to consider in weighing a claim under the omitted spouse statute, including the following factors which the Court has specifically considered and afforded weight, viz: (1) inter vivos transfer *206 by R.E. consisting of the work on Edwyna's house; (2) the value of the work on Edwyna's house; (3) the value of the survivorship accounts which passed to Edw

2014The court finds that the jury's punitive damages verdict against Target Media Partners Operating Company, LLC, in the amount of $630,000 on [Specialty Marketing]'s claim of promissory fraud and the jury's verdict for punitive damages against defendant Target Media Partners Operating Company, LLC, and defendant Ed Leader on [Specialty Marketing]'s claim of fraud[ulent misrepresentation] in the amount of $503,400 [were] fair, reasonable and justified." We need add nothing to the trial court's detailed analysis of the BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996), and Hammond/Green Oil

2013The court finds that the jury’s punitive damages verdict against Target Media Partners Operating Company, LLC, in the amount of $630,000 on [Specialty Marketing]’s claim of promissory fraud and the jury’s verdict for punitive damages against defendant Target Media Partners Operating Company, LLC, and defendant Ed Leader on [Specialty Marketing]’s claim of fraud[ulent misrepresentation] in the amount of $503,400 [were] fair, reasonable and justified.” We need add nothing to the trial court’s detailed analysis of the BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 , 116 S.Ct. 1589 , 134 L.Ed.2d

2007Credit Union v. Grayson , 878 So.2d at 289 .

2006Credit Union v. Grayson, 878 So.2d at 289 .

2000As we stated in Woods v. State, 789 So.2d 896 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), in addressing an identical claim: "The trial court was not obliged to give [a] detailed instruction every time the jury took a break during the trial.

2000As we stated in Woods v. State, 789 So.2d 896 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), in addressing an identical claim: “The trial court was not obliged to give [a] detailed instruction every time the jury took a break during the trial.

1999That holding in Army Aviation Center, however, was based on Ex parte Houston County, 435 So.2d 1268 (Ala. 1983), in which this Court had engaged in a more detailed analysis of the nature of orders denying motions in limine and had seemed to recognize distinctions between so-called "preliminary" *Page 146 and "absolute" denials.

1999That holding in Army Aviation Center, however, was based on Ex parte Houston County, 435 So.2d 1268 (Ala.1983), in which this Court had engaged in a more detailed analysis of the nature of orders denying motions in limine and had seemed to recognize distinctions between so-called “preliminary” and “absolute” denials.

2017Although the father admits that "when a trial court makes an award of attorney fees, it 'is not required to set forth a detailed analysis of all the applicable factors considered by it in exercising its discretion in establishing a reasonable attorney fee,' " Roberts , 189 So.3d at 85 (quoting Diamond Concrete & Slabs, LLC v. Andalusia-Opp Airport Auth. , 181 So.3d 1071 , 1076 (Ala. Civ.

2017Although the father admits that "when a trial court makes an award of attorney fees, it 'is not required to set forth a detailed analysis of all the applicable factors considered by it in exercising its discretion in establishing a reasonable attorney fee,' " Roberts , 189 So.3d at 85 (quoting Diamond Concrete & Slabs, LLC v. Andalusia-Opp Airport Auth. , 181 So.3d 1071 , 1076 (Ala. Civ.

2010The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in allowing this Rule 404(b) evidence to be admitted at Thompson’s trial.” 153 So.3d at 135-37 .

2006"Similar to the extensive inquiry required in Compass Bank [v. Snow , 823 So.2d 667 (Ala. 2001),] the necessity of conducting such a detailed inquiry into more than 60,000 transactions among numerous class members renders the requirement of predominance impossible.

2005The plurality opinion in Opinion of the Justices No. 373, supra, thoroughly analyzed those cases, and it did so before the gaming machines at issue in this matter were seized; the analysis in that opinion was later adopted by a majority of the Supreme Court of Alabama in Ex parte Ted’s Game Enterprises, supra. Given the foregoing, especially the timing of the release of Opinion of the Justices No. 373, supra, we reject KSE’s argument that it did not have “fair warning” that its gaming machines might violate Alabama’s criminal gambling statutes and, therefore, that those machines would be subje

2005The plurality opinion in Opinion of the Justices No. 373, supra, thoroughly analyzed those cases, and it did so before the gaming machines at issue in this matter were seized; the analysis in that opinion was later adopted by a majority of the Supreme Court of Alabama in Ex parte Ted’s Game Enterprises, supra. Given the foregoing, especially the timing of the release of Opinion of the Justices No. 373, supra, we reject KSE’s argument that it did not have “fair warning” that its gaming machines might violate Alabama’s criminal gambling statutes and, therefore, that those machines would be subje

2005The State cites to United States v. Lovelock, 170 F.3d 339 (2d Cir.1999), in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit addressed a factual situation virtually identical to the one presented here and engaged in a detailed analysis of the interplay between Payton and Steagald .

2001In Charles Manufacturing Co. v. United Furniture Workers , 361 So.2d 1033 (Ala. 1978), Justice Embry, writing for our Supreme Court, gave a detailed analysis of the kinds of contempt, the requirements needed to satisfy due process, and the essential elements of the charging instrument.

2001In reference to the written accusation, the Court stated, "[T]he form of it [the written accusation] is not material if it sets out the charges in such manner as to apprise [the accused] of the exact nature of it, and what he is called upon to defend." 361 So.2d at 1037 .

1993Callahan , 471 So.2d at 467 .

1990After going through a detailed analysis of these three statutes and applying general rules of statutory construction, the Court of Criminal Appeals reasoned that if "possession of marijuana were to be included within § 13A-12-212 , then §§ 13A-12-213 and -214 would serve no purpose." Pool v. State , 570 So.2d 1260 , 1262 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990).

1988The statute setting forth the procedural requirements for the admission of hospital records does not authorize “without qualification the carte blanche admission of all the hospital records.” Lowery v. State, 55 Ala.App. 511, 514 , 317 So.2d 357, 360 (1974), rev’d on other ground, 294 Ala. 347 , 317 So.2d 360 (1975).

1988The statute setting forth the procedural requirements for the admission of hospital records does not authorize “without qualification the carte blanche admission of all the hospital records.” Lowery v. State, 55 Ala.App. 511, 514 , 317 So.2d 357, 360 (1974), rev’d on other ground, 294 Ala. 347 , 317 So.2d 360 (1975).

1984Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487 , 82 S.Ct. 510 , 7 L.Ed.2d 473 (1962).” The issue now under consideration was raised also on the trial of the case, at which time a detailed inquiry was made out of the presence and hearing of the jury as to the 1958 conviction of an assault with intent to murder, in which it developed that the same attorney representing defendant on the trial of the instant case and on this appeal represented him in 1958 in the case in which he was adjudged guilty on a plea of guilty, sentenced to imprisonment for two years, and placed on probation.

1984Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487 , 82 S.Ct. 510 , 7 L.Ed.2d 473 (1962).” The issue now under consideration was raised also on the trial of the case, at which time a detailed inquiry was made out of the presence and hearing of the jury as to the 1958 conviction of an assault with intent to murder, in which it developed that the same attorney representing defendant on the trial of the instant case and on this appeal represented him in 1958 in the case in which he was adjudged guilty on a plea of guilty, sentenced to imprisonment for two years, and placed on probation.

1982Dolvin , supra. The following quotation from the record is representative of questions asked of each member of the jury venire by the court and appellant's counsel: *Page 924 "THE COURT: We are going to now enter upon a detailed inquiry with you, and we are going to do it in such a fashion that we will call twelve individual jurors to come and have a seat in the jury box.

1979In any event, this court in Watts v. Pettway, 49 Ala.App. 324 , 272 So.2d 251 (1973) (quoting from King v. Sturgis, 45 Ala.App. 553 , 233 So.2d 495 (1970)), attempts to state a detailed analysis of the “inadequate award” question.

1979In any event, this court in Watts v. Pettway, 49 Ala.App. 324 , 272 So.2d 251 (1973) (quoting from King v. Sturgis, 45 Ala.App. 553 , 233 So.2d 495 (1970)), attempts to state a detailed analysis of the “inadequate award” question.

1979In any event, this court in Watts v. Pettway, 49 Ala.App. 324 , 272 So.2d 251 (1973) (quoting from King v. Sturgis, 45 Ala.App. 553 , 233 So.2d 495 (1970)), attempts to state a detailed analysis of the “inadequate award” question.

1979In any event, this court in Watts v. Pettway, 49 Ala.App. 324 , 272 So.2d 251 (1973) (quoting from King v. Sturgis, 45 Ala.App. 553 , 233 So.2d 495 (1970)), attempts to state a detailed analysis of the “inadequate award” question.

1978Because counsel for each party cites Hooks v. Hooks, 264 Ala. 66 , 84 So.2d 354 (1955), a detailed analysis of that case is appropriate.

1978Because counsel for each party cites Hooks v. Hooks, 264 Ala. 66 , 84 So.2d 354 (1955), a detailed analysis of that case is appropriate.