list factors in Alabama

2001Id. ".... *269 "The appellant argues that Powe is inapplicable to the forcible-compulsion analysis in his case because, he says, the holding in Powe is limited to those cases where the defendant is an adult and that that holding cannot be extended to cases where the defendant is, like the appellant, a minor.

2001Id. [[Image here]] “The appellant argues that Powe is inapplicable to the forcible-compulsion analysis in his case because, he says, the holding in Powe is limited to those cases where the defendant is an adult and that that holding cannot be extended to cases where the defendant is, like the appellant, a minor.

2017We first note that, in Ex parte Ebbers , 871 So.2d 776 , 789-90 (Ala. 2003), our supreme court elaborated on the balancing test set forth in Baugh by adding a list of factors that have also been identified in federal cases considering motions to stay civil actions pending the resolution of criminal actions.

2011In Ex parte Ebbers, supra, our supreme court identified a list of factors to be considered in applying the balancing test; those factors include, but are not limited to: “1.

2000"In his reply brief, the appellant refers us to a list of factors set forth in Adkins v. State, 600 So.2d 1054 (Ala.Cr.

1996In his reply brief, the appellant refers us to a list of factors set forth in Adkins v. State , 600 So.2d 1054 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990), to be evaluated when considering the propriety of a continuance: "the length of the continuance, the inconvenience to witnesses, counsel, and the court, and whether the 'defendant has other competent counsel prepared to try the case, including the consideration of whether the other counsel was retained as lead or associate counsel.' " Id. at 1061 , quoting United States v. Burton , 584 F.2d 485 , 490-91 (D.C.

2000Another factor for consideration, listed in Burton, supra, is `whether the requested delay is for legitimate reasons, or whether it is dilatory, purposeful, or contrived.' Burton, 584 F.2d at 491 .

1996In his reply brief, the appellant refers us to a list of factors set forth in Adkins v. State , 600 So.2d 1054 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990), to be evaluated when considering the propriety of a continuance: "the length of the continuance, the inconvenience to witnesses, counsel, and the court, and whether the 'defendant has other competent counsel prepared to try the case, including the consideration of whether the other counsel was retained as lead or associate counsel.' " Id. at 1061 , quoting United States v. Burton , 584 F.2d 485 , 490-91 (D.C.

1994"Evidence that the 'jurors in question share[d] only this one characteristic — their membership in the group — and that in all other respects they [were] as heterogeneous as the community as a whole.' " Ex parte Branch , 526 So.2d at 622 . 2.

1994“Evidence that the ‘jurors in question share[d] only this one characteristic— their membership in the group — and that in all other respects they [were] as heterogeneous as the community as a whole.’” Ex parte Branch, 526 So.2d at 622 . 2.

2025Forcible compulsion does not require proof of resistance by the victim." Notably, the 2019 amendment expressly removed the requirement that the victim resist the use of force and the requirement that a threat place the victim in "fear of immediate death or serious physical injury." Moreover, the amendment expanded the definition to include not only "physical force" but also "violence, confinement, restraint, physical injury, or death." In addition, the legislature provided a list of factors to be considered in determining whether there is an implied threat, which we note are the same factors t

2013The appellate courts have often explained what factors a trial court facing a question of custody should consider. “ ‘In Ex parte Devine, 398 So.2d 686, 696-97 (Ala.1981), the Alabama Supreme Court set forth a list of factors a trial court may consider in making an initial award of custody based on the best interest of the children, including “ ‘ “[t]he sex and age of the children ...; ... the characteristics and needs of each child, including their emotional, social, moral, material and educational needs; the respective home environments offered by the parties; the characteristics of those se

2004Section 8-9A-4 ." 583 So.2d at 1288 . 2 Hide analogizes that rationale to the instant case to say that although the Partnerships have stated facts that show Rockhill's conduct matched some of the qualifications listed in § 8-9A-4 , Hide has presented evidence to the contrary, and that § 8-9A-4 (b) begins by stating that "consideration may be given." (Emphasis added.) This phrasing, argues Hide, indicates that the list of factors in § 8-9A-4 (b) is not intended to be exhaustive and that § 8-9A-4 (b) does not purport to state that if one or more of the elements are shown, actual intent to defrau

2004Section 8-9A-4." 583 So.2d at 1288 . [2] Hide analogizes that rationale to the instant case to say that although the Partnerships have stated facts that show Rockhill's conduct matched some of the qualifications listed in § 8-9A-4, Hide has presented evidence to the contrary, and that § 8-9A-4(b) begins by stating that "consideration may be given." (Emphasis added.) This phrasing, argues Hide, indicates that the list of factors in § 8-9A-4(b) is not intended to be exhaustive and that § 8-9A-4(b) does not purport to state that if one or more of the elements are shown, actual intent to defraud m

1996Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1069 , 99 S.Ct. 837 , 59 L.Ed.2d 34 (1979).

1996Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1069 , 99 S.Ct. 837 , 59 L.Ed.2d 34 (1979).

1995In Duck Head Apparel Co. v. Hoots, 659 So.2d 897 (Ala.1995), this Court, quoting the trial court's Hammond/Green Oil order in that case, set forth the following list of factors relevant to the question whether a punitive damages verdict is excessive, generally: "`(1) Culpability of defendant's conduct. "`(2) Desirability of discouraging others. "`(3) Impact on the parties. "`(4) Impact on innocent third parties. "`(5) Relationship between actual [or] potential harm and the amount of the verdict. "`(6) Degree of reprehensibility of defendant's misconduct, including duration, defendant's awarene

1995In Duck Head Apparel Co. v. Hoots, 659 So.2d 897 (Ala.1995), this Court, quoting the trial court's Hammond/Green Oil order in that case, set forth the following list of factors relevant to the question whether a punitive damages verdict is excessive, generally: "`(1) Culpability of defendant's conduct. "`(2) Desirability of discouraging others. "`(3) Impact on the parties. "`(4) Impact on innocent third parties. "`(5) Relationship between actual [or] potential harm and the amount of the verdict. "`(6) Degree of reprehensibility of defendant's misconduct, including duration, defendant's awarene

1994Freeman v. Hall , 286 Ala. 161 , 238 So.2d 330 (1970).

1994Freeman v. Hall , 286 Ala. 161 , 238 So.2d 330 (1970).

1987We believe that the position taken by appellant as to this issue is not in accordance with the established law as set forth in the Florida case we have cited hereinabove as to another point, State v. Gustafson, 258 So.2d 1 , from which we now quote, at 258 So.2d 3 , as follows: "It has been the holding of the authorities through the years that once a proper arrest is made, and the defendant is in custody that a reasonable search may then proceed and if evidence be then discovered reflecting that a crime has been committed or is being committed, the evidence is proper and admissible.

1976However, where a decree has set an allowance for alimony, the court will not modify the amount except upon proof of changed conditions which justify the modification, and then only to the extent of such changed conditions, Block v. Block, 281 Ala. 214 , 201 So.2d 51 .

1976However, where a decree has set an allowance for alimony, the court will not modify the amount except upon proof of changed conditions which justify the modification, and then only to the extent of such changed conditions, Block v. Block, 281 Ala. 214 , 201 So.2d 51 .

1976The amount to be awarded depends upon all the relevant circumstances, in the light of which it must be just and reasonable. [Citation omitted.] These elements are not susceptible of proper enumeration since the court in the exercise of its discretion may and should select or emphasize certain ones appropriate to the facts of the particular case, and since regardless of how exhaustive a list of such factors may be additional ones are constantly making their appearance. [Citation omitted.]” Garlington v. Garlington, 246 Ala. 665 , 22 So.2d 89 .

1976The amount to be awarded depends upon all the relevant circumstances, in the light of which it must be just and reasonable. [Citation omitted.] These elements are not susceptible of proper enumeration since the court in the exercise of its discretion may and should select or emphasize certain ones appropriate to the facts of the particular case, and since regardless of how exhaustive a list of such factors may be additional ones are constantly making their appearance. [Citation omitted.]” Garlington v. Garlington, 246 Ala. 665 , 22 So.2d 89 .