end hearing in Alabama

2025In Vrocher v. State, 813 So. 2d 799 (Ala. Crim.

2017In Wells , supra , this court reversed a judgment that had been entered in favor of the deceased wife, who was the defendant. 376 So.2d at 751 .

2017In Wells , supra , this court reversed a judgment that had been entered in favor of the deceased wife, who was the defendant. 376 So.2d at 751 .

2015This court acknowledges that a best-interests inquiry encompasses consideration of “the characteristics of those seeking custody, including age, character, stability, mental and physical health [and] the capacity and interest of each parent to provide for the emotional, social, moral, material and educational needs of the children,” 398 So.2d at 696-97 , all of which are factors relating to the fitness of a parent; however, the GVA still does not require a court to end its inquiry upon finding that a parent is fit to exercise custody of a child.

2012Under McLendon, the mother was not only required to demonstrate a material change in circumstances, she was also required to show “that the child’s best interests will be materially promoted by a change of custody, and that the benefits of the change will more than offset the inherently disruptive effect resulting from the change in custody.” Dean, 998 So.2d at 1065 .

2009In Dozier v. Farrior, 187 Ala. 181 , 65 So. 364 (1914), the Alabama Supreme Court observed that the rule “arises out of ‘the reasonable presumption ... that such *1150 property’ ... ‘will produce more when sold in parcels, because the sale is thus accommodated to the probable wants of purchasers,’ ” 187 Ala. at 185 , 65 So. at 366 (quoting Mahone v. Williams, 39 Ala. 202, 217 (1863)), and stated that, “if such property is sold en masse and brings a fair price, the mortgagor will not be heard to complain.” 187 Ala. at 186 , 65 So. at 366 .

2009In Dozier v. Farrior, 187 Ala. 181 , 65 So. 364 (1914), the Alabama Supreme Court observed that the rule “arises out of ‘the reasonable presumption ... that such *1150 property’ ... ‘will produce more when sold in parcels, because the sale is thus accommodated to the probable wants of purchasers,’ ” 187 Ala. at 185 , 65 So. at 366 (quoting Mahone v. Williams, 39 Ala. 202, 217 (1863)), and stated that, “if such property is sold en masse and brings a fair price, the mortgagor will not be heard to complain.” 187 Ala. at 186 , 65 So. at 366 .

2006Under the Fifth Amendment, where a non-waivable defect, such as an illegal verdict, prevents a jury from delivering either a conviction or acquittal at a defendant's first trial, that defendant, cannot avail himself of the plea of double jeopardy.' " Goodley , 423 So.2d at 651 .

2003"When reviewing a claim questioning the voluntariness of a statement we apply the standard articulated by the Alabama Supreme Court in McLeod v. State, 718 So.2d 727 (Ala.), on remand, 718 So.2d 731 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 929 , 118 S.Ct. 2327 , 141 L.Ed.2d 701 (1998).

2003"When reviewing a claim questioning the voluntariness of a statement we apply the standard articulated by the Alabama Supreme Court in McLeod v. State, 718 So.2d 727 (Ala.), on remand, 718 So.2d 731 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 929 , 118 S.Ct. 2327 , 141 L.Ed.2d 701 (1998).

2003"When reviewing a claim questioning the voluntariness of a statement we apply the standard articulated by the Alabama Supreme Court in McLeod v. State, 718 So.2d 727 (Ala.), on remand, 718 So.2d 731 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 929 , 118 S.Ct. 2327 , 141 L.Ed.2d 701 (1998).

2003"When reviewing a claim questioning the voluntariness of a statement we apply the standard articulated by the Alabama Supreme Court in McLeod v. State, 718 So.2d 727 (Ala.), on remand, 718 So.2d 731 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 929 , 118 S.Ct. 2327 , 141 L.Ed.2d 701 (1998).

2003"When reviewing a claim questioning the voluntariness of a statement we apply the standard articulated by the Alabama Supreme Court in McLeod v. State, 718 So.2d 727 (Ala.), on remand, 718 So.2d 731 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 929 , 118 S.Ct. 2327 , 141 L.Ed.2d 701 (1998).

1997It is a well-understood principle of law that the trial court is vested with the authority "to manage its affairs in order to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases." Iverson v. Xpert Tune, Inc., 553 So.2d 82 (Ala.1989).

1995"In Ex parte Branch, 526 So.2d 609 (Ala.1987), the Alabama Supreme Court set forth guidelines for considering a Batson motion.

1995"In Ex parte Branch , 526 So.2d 609 (Ala. 1987), the Alabama Supreme Court set forth guidelines for considering a Batson motion.

1992As we stated in McCovery v. State , 365 So.2d 358 , 362-63 (Ala.Cr.App. 1978): "Remarks by the trial judge may be open to criticism, but they are not [reversible] error unless they may have affected the result of the trial.

1986It ignores the fact that the oath administered to the witness calls on him freely to disclose the truth in the first instance and not to put the court and the parties to the disadvantage, hindrance, and delay of ultimately extracting the truth by cross-examination, by extraneous investigation, or other collateral means.” 300 U.S. at 573-4 , 57 S.Ct. at 539 .

1986It ignores the fact that the oath administered to the witness calls on him freely to disclose the truth in the first instance and not to put the court and the parties to the disadvantage, hindrance, and delay of ultimately extracting the truth by cross-examination, by extraneous investigation, or other collateral means.” 300 U.S. at 573-4 , 57 S.Ct. at 539 .

1985On appeal, appellant asserts that he was not given adequate notice or disclosure under the minimal due process requirements as set out in Armstrong v. State, 294 Ala. 100 , 312 So.2d 620 (1975).

1985On appeal, appellant asserts that he was not given adequate notice or disclosure under the minimal due process requirements as set out in Armstrong v. State, 294 Ala. 100 , 312 So.2d 620 (1975).

1982Com'n., 425 So.2d 430 (1982), this Court specifically addressed the issue of adjustments to test year expenses for charges occurring more than six months after the end of the test year.

1982Utilities Commission v. Duke Power Co., 305 N.C. 1 , 287 S.E.2d 786 (1982), the North Carolina Supreme Court addressed this very issue: "In reducing Duke's rate base by the addition to the accumulated depreciation account of $3,879,000 the Commission acted within its statutory power.

1982Utilities Commission v. Duke Power Co., 305 N.C. 1 , 287 S.E.2d 786 (1982), the North Carolina Supreme Court addressed this very issue: "In reducing Duke's rate base by the addition to the accumulated depreciation account of $3,879,000 the Commission acted within its statutory power.

1975It is not theory but the impact of the rate order which counts;’ 320 U. S. 591 , 64 S.Ct. 281 , 88 L.Ed. 333, 345 .” As stated in appellants’ brief: “The Commission order adjusted the revenues of GT of Alabama so as to give effect to ‘an additional $248,724 in intrastate toll revenues as a result of the South Central increase.’ * * * The Commission then added the return portion of this revenue adjustment ($122,347) to income available for return at the end of the test period. * * * ” It appears that of the $248,724 found to be due GT of Alabama by virtue of “tracking” South Central’s rates, th

1975It is not theory but the impact of the rate order which counts;’ 320 U. S. 591 , 64 S.Ct. 281 , 88 L.Ed. 333, 345 .” As stated in appellants’ brief: “The Commission order adjusted the revenues of GT of Alabama so as to give effect to ‘an additional $248,724 in intrastate toll revenues as a result of the South Central increase.’ * * * The Commission then added the return portion of this revenue adjustment ($122,347) to income available for return at the end of the test period. * * * ” It appears that of the $248,724 found to be due GT of Alabama by virtue of “tracking” South Central’s rates, th

1975He denied bail, announcing at the end of the hearing: “THE COURT: Well, in view of the Grand Jury notes, and in view of the three felonies of rape and two robberies, and in view of the past record, no bond.” Ex parte Bynum, 294 Ala. 78 , 312 So.2d 52 , is probably the latest decision on the right to bail before conviction, as guaranteed by our constitution, § 16.

1975He denied bail, announcing at the end of the hearing: “THE COURT: Well, in view of the Grand Jury notes, and in view of the three felonies of rape and two robberies, and in view of the past record, no bond.” Ex parte Bynum, 294 Ala. 78 , 312 So.2d 52 , is probably the latest decision on the right to bail before conviction, as guaranteed by our constitution, § 16.